Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.C.A.paLMSA 0 iZ t 0 U N � OypTfO cQt iFORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 4, 2017 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED MANDATORY SOLAR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services Building and Safety Department SUMMARY: Discussion of proposed amendments to Section 8.04.072 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, mandating the installation of solar photovoltaic systems in all new residential construction and in significant additions or renovations of existing single-family residential structures. The proposed ordinance was drafted in response to direction given at the joint City Council/Sustainability Commission meeting held on June 23, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed solar ordinance and provide direction to staff as appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Sustainability Commission initiated research on the topic of mandatory solar requirements in early 2016, following the adoption of ordinances by the cities of San Francisco and Santa Monica. The topic was discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and the Sustainability Commission in June 2016 (staff report and backup materials included as Attachment #3 to this report). While the City Council did not take formal action at that time, the Council requested additional information relative to costs, incentives, threshold requirements, and impacts to affordable or starter housing. The Sustainability Commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee continued to research the topic, and presented their findings at a study session of the Planning ITEM NO. J' D' 4 - t A. PALINSA� iZ � O u in �M��Ieoes(E�,eAa/V Q��FORN� CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 4, 2017 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED MANDATORY SOLAR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services Building and Safety Department SUMMARY: Discussion of proposed amendments to Section 8.04.072 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, mandating the installation of solar photovoltaic systems in all new residential construction and in significant additions or renovations of existing single-family residential structures. The proposed ordinance was drafted in response to direction given at the joint City Council/Sustainability Commission meeting held on June 23, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed solar ordinance and provide direction to staff as appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Sustainability Commission initiated research on the topic of mandatory solar requirements in early 2016, following the adoption of ordinances by the cities of San Francisco and Santa Monica. The topic was discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and the Sustainability Commission in June 2016 (staff report and backup materials included as Attachment #3 to this report). While the City Council did not take formal action at that time, the Council requested additional information relative to costs, incentives, threshold requirements, and impacts to affordable or starter housing. The Sustainability Commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee continued to research the topic, and presented their findings at a study session of the Planning ITEM No. 5' C4 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 -- Page 2 Proposed Solar Ordinance Commission on December 14, 2016, with the participation of members of the Sustainability Commission (study session materials included as Attachment #5 to this report). Following the study session discussion, the Sustainability Commission unanimously approved recommendations for a solar ordinance at its meeting of December 21, 2016. On January 11, 2017, the Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations of the Sustainability Commission. While the Planning Commission does not normally make recommendations on amendments to the Municipal Code, the proposed ordinance would impact future development proposals, and as such, it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission expressed general support for the proposed ordinance, but requested additional information and analysis prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff retained the firm of EcoMotion to prepare a cost-effectiveness study (study is included as Attachment #2 to this report). The Planning Commission considered the cost-effectiveness study and other information provided by the subcommittee at the meeting of April 26, 2017. The proposed ordinance considered on April 26th included several changes that were intended to address the input and concerns from stakeholder groups, as well as issues raised by the Planning Commission from their consideration of the item in January 2017. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council (staff report and backup materials included as Attachment #7 to this report). STAFF ANALYSIS: Palm Springs has continuously strived to be a leader in energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable development practices, in line with the objectives established by the 2007 General Plan, the 2013 Climate Action Plan, and the 2016 Sustainability Plan. The 2016 Sustainability Plan calls for the City to develop strategies to reduce community -wide contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the total energy use by all buildings built before 2012 by 10%, and to reduce energy use for all new construction. The proposed mandatory solar ordinance is one approach to implement the sustainability policies and goals of the City's adopted plans. Draft Ordinance: A draft of the proposed mandatory solar ordinance is included as Attachment #1 to this report. The following discussion provides a summary of the key elements of the proposed draft ordinance: • Applicability — New Residential Construction. The proposed ordinance would apply to all new construction of single-family residential units and multifamily residential buildings. • Applicability — Residential Remodel. Applicable to any addition to a single-family residential structure that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided 02 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 -- Page 3 Proposed Solar Ordinance that the increase is at least 500 square feet, except where the addition is an accessory dwelling unit. The ordinance would also apply to remodeling work where renovation or demolition involves more than 50% of the existing structure. • Solar Wattage Required. Requires the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). The system shall be located on -site. • Exemptions. The draft ordinance proposes exemptions for the following development: 1. Low-income residential housing (as defined by the California Public Utilities Code). 2. Factory -built housing (as defined by the California Health and Safety Code). 3. Projects entitled before the effective date of the proposed ordinance. • Waivers. Waivers from the mandatory solar requirement would be possible upon a determination by the Building Official based on one or more of the following criteria: 1. Site conditions which make solar installation infeasible, such as shading from nearby structures or vegetation, topography, site location, or limited rooftop area. 2. Documentation that the structure will achieve energy savings in excess of what is required under Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code through some other certification program, such as LEED Silver certification, U.S. Passive House Institute certification, or achievement of Tier 1 status of the California Green Building Standards Code. 3. Entry-level housing product which will be developed and sold at a price that is less than median sales price for new construction. One of the issues that has been a concern for both the Planning Commission and stakeholder groups is the waiver provisions for entry-level housing. While the provision of solar photovoltaic panels will assist in reducing long-term energy costs, the costs of the system can result in increased costs upon purchase. The waiver provisions suggested in Section 4.201.3(2)(a) of the draft ordinance were specifically developed to allow an exemption for both single- and multifamily units that are priced for the entry-level market, eliminating the requirement to install solar photovoltaic systems. The issue in establishing the waiver provision is how to determine the definition for entry-level housing in Palm Springs; as currently drafted, the determination is based on a percentage of the median price (75% for single-family, 50% for multifamily) for new construction. Other methods were considered by both the Sustainability Commission and the Planning Commission, including basing the waiver on the square footage or cost per square foot. Cost -Effectiveness Study. The California Energy Commission (CEC) requires that a cost-effectiveness study be conducted and filed for local amendments to the energy efficiency requirements in the Green Building Standards Code. Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by the Energy Code. �3 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 -- Page 4 Proposed Solar Ordinance Planning staff retained the firm of EcoMotion to prepare the cost-effectiveness study, based on their work in preparing similar studies for other California jurisdictions. EcoMotion determined in its study that the Palms Springs ordinance establishing mandatory solar photovoltaic measures does not inhibit cost effectiveness. In particular, EcoMotion concluded that solar photovoltaic systems installed on new homes and during major remodels will provide considerable savings for homeowners over the life of the systems. The study also indicates that even if solar tax credits are eliminated and other incentives disappear, solar installations will still be cost effective. The cost-effectiveness study is included as Attachment #2 to this report. CEC Approval Process: The CEC requires that cities which adopt amendments to the energy code must do so by ordinance and then submit the ordinance to the CEC for review. The CEC will then administer a 60-day public comment period on the proposed code changes. City staff will be asked to respond to public comments on an as -needed basis. After the close of the 60-day public comment period, the CEC may request revisions to the ordinance. In the case of necessary revisions, staff would plan to come back to the City Council to present the amended ordinance at second reading. Future Changes to Energy Efficiency Standards: The CEC has now begun pre-rulemaking for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as the CEC moves towards its goal to achieve zero net energy (ZNE) levels by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for nonresidential buildings. Solar will be required statewide on new construction starting in 2020. Based on a presentation given by CEC staff in August 2017, the sizing requirements for the climate zone where Palm Springs is located is likely to be higher than the two watts per square foot standard that is proposed. The CEC is encouraging local governments to adopt solar ordinances now to move toward the state's goals and provide the CEC with real data on which it can base future codes. To assist that process, the CEC prepared a model solar ordinance. The proposed Palm Springs ordinance includes language that is adapted, in certain cases word-for- word, from the model ordinance. Mandatory Solar Regulations — Other California Cities: Other California cities have considered the advantages of solar installations and have adopted ordinances requiring them in new construction, stating with Culver City in 2008. Lancaster and Sebastopol adopted mandatory solar ordinances in 2013; San Francisco, Santa Monica and San Mateo did so in 2016. Most recently, Brisbane adopted an ordinance in January 2017, and Fremont adopted regulations in April 2017. Lancaster recently updated its ordinance to require a PV system of at least 2.0 watts per square foot. �,r City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 -- Page 5 Proposed Solar Ordinance CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance the environment of the City of Palm Springs. Accordingly, this ordinance is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. There is no possibility that enhancing environmental conservation efforts would have a significant negative effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Green Building Standards Code amendment will not have a budgetary impact on the City, as the City is already required to enforce the Green Building Standards Code and the local amendments will not be onerous to implement and track. There will be a fiscal impact to home buyers and property owners in the initial cost of the PV system, although the cost-effectiveness study indicates that those costs will eventually be recouped through reductions in utility bills. Flinnagg, AICF� Director of Planning Service M rcus . Fu er, MPA, P.E., L.S. Assistant City Manager/City Engineer James Zicaro Director of B ilding and Safety David H. Ready, Esq., P City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. EcoMotion Study prepared for the City of Palm Springs (includes "Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study" prepared by Davis Energy Group Inc. as an attachment) 3. City Council Staff Report and Minutes — Joint City Council/Sustainability Commission Meeting of 06/23/16 4. Subcommittee Report — Sustainability Commission meeting of 12/15/16 05 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 -- Page 6 Proposed Solar Ordinance 5. PowerPoint Presentation — Planning Commission Study Session of 12/14/16 6. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes — Meeting of 01/11/17 7. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes — Meeting of 04/26/17 8. Public Comment Letters 9. CEC Presentation — Proposed 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (08/30117) eG ATTACHMENT #1 07 Draft Ordinance: Mandatory Solar Installation Requirements 8.04.072. California Green Building Standards Code — Amendments and Deletions. 4.201.2 Residential Solar Photovoltaic —When Required. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 apply to: (a) all newly constructed single-family residential buildings, excluding accessory structures. (b) all newly constructed multiple -family residential buildings classified in Residential Groups R-2 and R-3, as defined respectively in Section 310.4 and 310.5 of the California Building Code adopted by reference pursuant to Section 8.04.010 of this Chapter. (c) any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases its square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, except where the addition is an accessory second unit; and (d) any remodel, alteration or renovation to an existing single-family residential building that is made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. 2. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to low-income residential housing as such term is defined in Section 2852(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code if the cost of installation of the solar photovoltaic system is not fully funded without recourse to the residents of such low- income residential housing. 3. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to factory -built housing as such term is defined in Section 19971 of the California Health and Safety Code. 4. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to any project that was fully entitled as of the date of entry into effect of such Section. 5. At the time of submittal of a permit application for a residential building meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section, an applicant shall submit plans and an application for a solar photovoltaic system in accordance with the sizing requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.3. October4, 2017 Page 1 .. G 4.201.3 Residential Solar Photovoltaic installations 1. All residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.2 shall install a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum total wattage equal to two (2) watts times the total square footage of the subject building. The system shall be located on site. 2. The requirement for installation of a solar photovoltaic system may be waived or the total wattage requirement may be reduced upon a determination by the Building Official, The Building Official shall consider one or more of the following criteria in making a determination for a waiver or reduction: (a) The residential building(s) will be developed or sold at a price that is less than 75% of the current median sales price for new single- family construction or 50% of the median sales price for new multifamily home construction in Palm Springs, whichever may be applicable. (b) Installation of a solar photovoltaic system is infeasible based upon factors including but not limited to building site location, limited rooftop availability, shading from nearby structures, topography, or vegetation; or (c) Documentation that the residential building(s) in question comply with an objective standard that the Building Official determines, in an exercise of his/her discretion, will result in energy savings equivalent to, or in excess of what would be required under Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code, e.g., "LEED Silver" certification, Passive House Institute US certification, achievement Of "Tier 1" status as described in Appendix A-4 to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, etc. 3. Any determination by the Building Official as to a waiver or reduction of the requirement for installation of a solar photovoltaic system may be appealed to the Building Code Appeals Board pursuant to Section 8.04.340 of the Palm Springs Municipal Doe. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, in accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 8.04.340, the decision of the Building Code Appeals Board shall be the final administrative action as to any determination hereunder. 4. Solar energy systems that are leased by the end -use customer (tenant or owner) or that supply electricity to the end -use customer through a power purchase agreement (PPA) may be used to satisfy the requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section. October 4, 2017 Page 2 C• 5. Newly constructed residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.2 shall comply with the 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Code without claiming the solar compliance credit described in Section 2.2.3 of the 2016 Title 24, Part 6, Residential Alternative Calculation Method. October 4, 2017 Page 3 10 ATTACHMENT #2 ECoMotion — Sustainability Solutions 601 Fifth Street. Suite 650 Los Aneeles CA 90071 . (949) 450-7155 • www.EcoMotion.us DRAFT 3/6/17 MW Solar Ordinance Cost -Effectiveness Study Presented to: Flinn Fagg Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Table of Contents Executive Summary Key Assumptions Impact of Palm Springs's Utility Users Tax (UUT) Residential Cost scale Residential Examples Conclusion Exhibits Executive Summary EcoMotion was retained by the City of Palm Springs to validate its proposed Solar Ordinance. The bottom line is that in all scenarios examined, the Palms Springs ordinance establishing mandatory solar photovoltaic measures does not inhibit cost effectiveness. This report updates metrics, assumptions, and conclusions from the 2016 California Public Utilities Commission study prepared for PG&E and authored by Davis Energy Group, Inc. Enercomp, Inc.MistiBruceri & Associates, LLC entitled "Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study' (also attached as Exhibit 2). While the CPUC/PG&E study covers all regions and sectors of California, the EcoMotion update focuses only on the City of Palm Springs, the Southern California baseline Region 15 that it occupies, and the residential rates of the serving utility, Southern California Edison. Whereas the 2016 CPUC/PG&E study states: 'This report finds the evaluated solar PV ordinance to be both feasible and cost effective, and reduces energy demand in all 16 California climates zones.", the EcoMotion update affirms that PV systems will be cost-effective for the residential sector for the 25-year life of the solar measure, even if tax credits and incentives are not present. The main difference between today's market and the assumptions made for the 2016 CPUC/PG&E study report is that a multi -year extension of the ITC was granted in 2016, alleviating concerns in the industry. Solar installation prices have continued to decline while utility rates have continued to increase, keeping solar even more cost-effective. This update of 2016 CPUC/PG&E study report cost-effectiveness conclusions focuses on the original assumptions made, any new assumptions made to support current and continuing conditions, and focuses on Palm Springs based average consumption (5 kWh per square foot, a number furnished by SCE) to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Key Assumptions Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of rooftop PV installations for newly constructed buildings is complex and depends on several variables. The CPUC/PG&E report addresses this complexity by using scenario analysis and categorizing results by climate zone and broad customer classes. In this report, EcoMotion uses some assumptions from the CPUC/PG&E report but focuses on scenarios that are most common in the City of Palm Springs. EcoMotion assumes all solar systems are in Palm Springs (Climate Zone 15) and accrue benefits over a 25 year economic lifetime. Table 1: Protot•ope Characteristics* Sinale Famihr Sinale Familv One -Story Two -Story Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 f1:2 Num. of Stories 1 2 Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 Window -to -Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% *2016 CPUC/PG&E study 2016 CPUC/PG&E Report assumptions 2016 EcoMotion Report assumptions Utility electricity rate structures and Net Energy Metering (NEM) rules do not change significantly throughout the lifetime of rooftop PV systems Utility rates escalate at 0% (conservative assumption) Rooftop PV costs for Climate Zone 15 were placed at $4.06 per watt (DC) All systems are roof -mounted The CPUC/PG&E study defines cost effectiveness as lifecycle benefits (savings) being greater than lifecycle costs. The solar lifecycle being 30 years Given the dramatic impact NEM has on the cost-effectiveness of solar, this analysis assumes Time -of -use rate structures coming with NEM 2.0 Utility rates escalate at 0% Rooftop PV costs continue to decline. EcoMotion will assume the same cost for Palm Springs although competitive bidding may yield lower prices All systems are roof -mounted EcoMotion also defines cost effectiveness as lifecycle benefits (savings) being greater than lifecycle costs. EcoMotion uses the more conservative lifecycle figure of 25 years New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) rebates New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) rebates are represented are not represented Lifecycle cost estimates include the 30%Tax Credit No specific solar ordinance is referenced EcoMotion does not include the tax credit and shows cost effectiveness without it EcoMotion assumes the Palm Springs PV requirement of 2 watts per square foot Impact of Palm Springs's Utility Users Tax (UUT) All residential SCE customers pay a 5% Utility Users Tax to the City of Palm Springs. The tax varies city by city. Some cities charge no tax. The tax is not mentioned in the CEC study. For Palm Springs and other cities, the UUT has the impact of raising the consumer utility costs by 5%. In terms of solar cost- effectiveness, it means that avoided utility cost has a 5% greater value and helps the payback term for solar deals. Residential Cost Scale 2016 CPUC/PG&E Report $4.06/watt 2016 EcoMotion Report $4.06/watt Residential Property Examples While SCE rate TOU-D-T is the default rate required after July 1, 2017 for new solar installations, EcoMotion has provided analysis for the two other TOU rate options available in Palm Springs. Supporting spreadsheets with rate detail are in Exhibit 1. Residential Cost -Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-T* Annual kWh Square Feet Required solar kW size (DC) First Year Bill Payback use and gross cost Savings 10,500 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 51,453 11.7 years (one story) 13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 $1,856 11.8 years (two story) *Assumes 30% of summer use is in "on peak" period Residential Solar Cost -Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-Option A* Use assumption of SkWh per square foot far Climate Zone 15 provided by SCE Annual kWh use 10,500 Square Feet Required solar kW size (DC) First Year Bill and gross cost Savings 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 (one story) 13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 (two story) *Assumes 30% of summer use is in "on peak" period $1,264 $1,614 Residential Solar Cost -Effectiveness with SCE Rate TOU-D-Option B* Annual kWh use 10,500 Square Feet Required solar kW size (DC) First Year Bill and gross cost Savings Payback 13.5 years 13.6 years Payback 2,100 4.2 kW $17,052 $1,201 14.2 years (one story) 13,500 2,700 5.4 kW $21,924 51,544 14.2 years (two story) *Assumes 30% of summer use is in "on peak" period In many cases, the homeowner may elect to exceed the required kW size to maximize return on investment and lower the payback period. Conclusion Solar photovoltaic systems installed on new homes and during major remodels will provide considerable savings for homeowners over the life of the systems. Solar is cost-effective and pays for itself with utility bill savings. Solar is cost-effective today and will remain cost-effective into the future as installation prices decrease while utility rates increase. Even if solar tax credits go away and the all other incentives disappear, solar installations will still be cost effective. f Exhibit 1 Palm Springs SCE Solar Savings Calculations (based on SCE rates effective 1/1/17) PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-T Rate Savings 4.2 Summer Peak 1,296 $ 0.3542 $ 459.04 Summer Off Peak 1,595 $ 0.1813 $ 289.17 Winter Peak 1,424 $ 0.2343 $ 333.64 Winter Off Peak 2,118 $ 0.1752 $ 371.07 Totals 6,433 $ 1,452.93 PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-T Rate Savings 5.4 Summer Peak 1,655 $ 0.3542 $ 586.20 Summer Off Peak 2,038 $ 0.1813 $ 369.49 Winter Peak 1,820 $ 0.2343 $ 426.43 Winter Off Peak 2,707 $ 0.1752 $ 474.27 Totals 8,220 $ 1,856.38 PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-A Rate Savings 4.2 Summer Peak 741 $ 0.3564 $ 264.11 Summer Part Peak 1,823 $ 0.1874 $ 341.71 Summer Off Peak 326 $ 0.0393 $ 12.82 Winter Peak 689 $ 0.2478 $ 170.63 Winter Part Peak 2,520 $ 0.1825 $ 459.94 Winter Off Peak 333 $ 0.0436 $ 14.54 Totals 6,433 $ 1,263.74 PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCE TOU-D-A Rate Savings 5.4 Summer Peak 947 $ 0.3564 $ 337.47 Summer Part Peak 2,330 $ 0.1874 $ 436.63 Summer Off Peak 417 $ 0.0393 $ 16.38 Winter Peak 880 $ 0.2478 $ 218.02 Winter Part Peak 3,220 $ 0.1825 $ 587.70 Winter Off Peak 426 $ 0.0436 $ 18.57 Totals 8,220 $ 1,614.78 Exhibit 1 (cont.) Palm Springs SCE Solar Savings Calculations (based on SCE rates effective 1/1/17) PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCETOU-D-B Rate Savings 4.2 Summer Peak 741 $ 0.3351 $ 248.32 Summer Part Peak 1,823 $ 0.1661 $ 302.87 Summer Off Peak 326 $ 0.1308 $ 42.66 Winter Peak 689 $ 0.2266 $ 156.03 Winter Part Peak 2,520 $ 0.1612 $ 406.26 Winter Off Peak 333 $ 0.1350 $ 45.01 Totals 6,433 $ 1,201.15 PV Size (kW dc) Solar Generation kWh Estimate SCETOU-D-B Rate Savings 5.4 Summer Peak 947 $ 0.3351 $ 317.30 Summer Part Peak 2,330 $ 0.1661 $ 387.00 Summer Off Peak 417 $ 0.1308 $ 54.52 Winter Peak 880 $ 0.2266 $ 199.37 Winter Part Peak 3,220 $ 0.1612 $ 519.11 Winter Off Peak 426 $ 0.1350 $ 57.51 Totals 8,220 $ 1,534.81 Exhibit 2 CA Statewide Codes and Standards Program Title 24, Part 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Prepared for: Marshall Hunt Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared by: Davis Energy Group, Inc. Enercomp, Inc. Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC Last Modified: September 23, 2016 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2016, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately -owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1: Prototype Characteristics...................................................................................................................I Table 2: Minimum Percent Reduction of Total Annual TDV Energy Use by Climate Zone..........................4 Table 3: Minimum PV System Size (kWDC) required to meet Solar PV Ordinance by Climate Zone ............ 4 Table 4: IOU Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone...............................................................................5 Table 5: Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions......................................................................................5 Table 6: Equivalent COz Emissions Factors....................................................................................................6 Table 7: Single Family PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results.....................................................................7 Table 8: Multifamily PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results........................................................................9 List of Figures Figure 1: Single family cost effectiveness comparison....................................................................................7 Figure 2: Multifamily cost effectiveness comparison......................................................................................8 �s Local PT' Ordinance Cost Efectiveness Study 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2016a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. The Energy Commission staff approached the statewide Codes and Standards team to provide inputs on a draft solar photovoltaic model ordinance. The Energy Commission staff asked the IOU team to review the ordinance language and to suggest recommended solar PV system sizing based on size of home. Based on conversations between the Energy Commission, the IOUs and their consultant teams, the following needs were identified for the proposed PV ordinance: a. Needs to be simple and easy to implement by the local jurisdiction b. Must be aligned with the overall vision for energy efficiency and ZNE driving to a "glide path" to meet 2020 goals for residential new construction. c. Must not result in oversized PV systems that may have grid impacts. This report presents the results from analysis of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring new low-rise single family and multifamily residential construction to include rooftop PV systems in addition to meeting the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which become effective January 1, 2017. The cost effectiveness analysis for all sixteen California climate zones in this report includes meeting minimum Title 24 efficiency performance targets plus on - site renewable energy generation sized to offset a portion of the total TDV loads of the building without risking sizing of the PV system larger than the estimated electrical energy use of the building. Additional scenarios including both PV and above -code energy efficiency measures are documented in a report delivered to Pacific Gas and Electric Company'. 2 Methodology and Assumptions 2.1 Building Prototypes The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. Two single family prototypes and one multifamily prototype, are used in this analysis and development of the above -code efficiency packages. Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional ' Title 24, Part 11, Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances — CALGreen Cost Effectiveness Study, September 2, 2016 Page 1 September, 2016 ..e) 1. 1. Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (CEC, 2016b). Table 2: Prototype Characteristics Single Family, Single Family Multifamily One -Story Two-Story 6,960 ft2: Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 (4) 780 ft2 & (4) 960 ft2 units Num. of Stories 1 2 2 (4) 1-bed & Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 (4) 2-bed units Window -to -Floor Area 20% 20% 15% Ratio Additionally, each prototype building has the following features: • Slab -on -grade foundation • Vented attic. High performance attic in climates where prescriptively included (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed below roof deck. Refer to Table 150.1-A in Appendix A. • Ductwork located in the attic for single family homes and in conditioned space for multifamily. • Split -system gas furnace with air conditioner that meets the minimum federal guidelines for efficiency • Tank -less gas water heater that meets the minimum federal guidelines for efficiency; individual water heaters in each multifamily apartment. Other features are defined consistent with the Standard Design in the Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual (CEC, 2016c), designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. The Energy Commission's standard protocol for the single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single -story and two- story homes being built statewide, assuming 45% single -story homes and 55% two-story homes. Simulation results in this study are therefore characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430 ft2 house 2. 2.2 Energy Simulations The CBECC-RES 2016.2.0 Alpha23 compliance simulation tool was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2016 prescriptive standards as the benchmark and the 2016 time dependent valuation (TDV) values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards. TDV values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. TDV was developed to reflect the "societal value or cost" of energy including long- term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions. Electricity used 2 2,430 ft2 = 45% * 2,100 ft2 + 55% * 2,700 ft2 3 On June 14, 2016 the Energy Commission approved CBECC-Res 2016.2.0 Version of the software. The version used for this study is nearly identical to the approved version with the exception of minor changes that do not affect the cost effective analysis of the mcasures evaluated. Page 2 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study (or saved) during peak periods of the summer has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al, 2014). The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2016 prescriptive requirements (0% compliance margin). Standards Table 150.1-A, included in Appendix A lists the prescriptive measures that determine the base design in each climate zone. 2.3 PV Sizing Criteria The minimum PV system size required by the proposed ordinance is determined using a performance -based (simulation) approach. There is a prescriptive sizing option that yields minimum system capacities equivalent to the performance option. The intent of the PV sizing assumptions is to size PV to offset building electricity use while minimizing the risk of requiring PV system sizes that produce significantly more than the building total electricity use on an annual basis. The following considerations were used for sizing the PV systems: 1. Solar PV capacities proposed in the ordinance are the minimum sizes required. A builder or homeowner may install larger systems. 2. Solar PV sizing is based on percent of total building TDV energy use. Initial calculations were conducted such that PV system size is equivalent to offsetting 80% of total building estimated electricity use for a typical gas/electric home built to the minimum 2016 Title 24 requirements. 3. The performance option is based on offsetting a certain percentage of total TDV energy use. System sizes calculated in Step 3 above were adjusted to reference a percentage of TDV energy use, and grouped into three bins depending on system size and climate zone (see Table 3). The sizing is fuel agnostic since it based on TDV and designed such that builders designing homes more efficient than 2016 code are not forced to install PV systems larger than the building's projected annual electricity use. The performance section of the ordinance uses TDV which needs to be incorporated into CBECC-Res software making the review process for building departments similar to that for regular Title 24 compliance review. 4. Based on these calculations, prescriptive PV capacity tables were developed for each climate zone (see Table 4) for single family buildings with conditioned floor areas less than 4,500 square feet. Larger homes must use the performance approach. Homes smaller than 4,500 square feet may comply either with the prescriptive or the performance path. 5. PV system values shown in Table 3 and Table 4 were calculated using the following methodology: Page 3 • PV size was estimated based on percent of total building TDV for each climate zone and reflects a value that does not exceed 80% of total building electricity use. • Calculations are based on specs for a 2016 code compliant building and both TDV and electricity use were calculated using CBECC-Res software. • HVAC energy use (cooling, heating, IAQ fans) are based on per square foot energy using a weighted average of the 2,100 single -story and 2,700 2-story single family prototype buildings and assuming gas appliances. Values specific to each climate zone. September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study, • Water heating energy use assumes a standard gas tankless water heater and is adjusted based on number of bedrooms consistent with the rules in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual (CEC. 2016c). Hot water usage capped at 5 bedrooms per ACM. Plug load, lighting, and appliance energy use based on algorithms developed from 2016 CASE report and used in CBECC-Res. Values are adjusted based on # of bedrooms and floor area. Values capped at 4,150 square feet and 7 bedrooms per ACM. • PV production based on specific PV production for each climate zone, using PV modeling in CBECC-Res (PVWatts methodology). Assumes standard PV efficiency and assumptions consistent with the NSHP California Flexible Installation (CFI) criteria (170 degree azimuth, 5:12 roof pitch), along with a 96% efficiency inverter and standard system losses. Table 3: Minimum Percent Reduction of Total Annual TDV Energy Use by Climate Zone (Performance Approach) (Climate Zone % Total TDV ICZs 14,16 35% ICZs 1, 2, 4, 9-13, 15 45% ICZs 3, 5-8 55% Table 4: Minimum PV System Size (kWDc) required to meet Solar PV Ordinance by Climat-? Zone Conditioned CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Space(U) Less than 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.3 1000 1000 - 1499 2.0 1.7 1 7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.9 2.3 1.6 2.8 1.6 1500 - 1999 2.4 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.3 2 8 2.0 3.5 1.9 2000 - 2499 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.0 2 4 2.3 2.3 3.2 2.7 3.4 2.3 4.2 2.3 2500 - 2999 3.2 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.7 3.1 3.9 2.7 4.9 2.6 3000 - 3499 3.6 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.0 4.2 3.4 4.4 3 0 5.6 3.0 3500 - 3999 3.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.7 3.3 3.2 3.3 4.7 3.8 4.9 3.4 6.3 3.3 4000 - 4499 4.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.6 5.1 4.2 5.4 3.7 7.0 3.6 2.4 Cost Effectiveness A customer based approach to evaluating cost effectiveness was used based on past experience with reach code adoption by local governments. The current residential utility rates at the time of the analysis were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine cost effectiveness for the proposed packages. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5 and included in Appendix C. The standard residential rate (E1 in PG&E territory, D in SCE territory, & DR in SDG&E) was applied to the base case and all cases without PV systems. The Page 4 September, 2016 Local PP'Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study applicable residential time -of -use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases with PV systems. ° Any annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for that utility. The net surplus compensation rates for the different utilities are as follows: • PG&E: $0.043 / kWh • SCE: $0.0298 / kWh' • SDG&E: S0.0321 / kWh' Table 5: IOU Utilit_ 1 Tariffs used based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Electricity Electricity Natural Gas Utility (Standard) (Time -of -use) 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E El E-TOU, Option A G1 6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas D TOU-D-T GR 7 SDG&E DR DR-SES GR Table 6 below summarizes the incremental costs applied in this analysis. A range of PV pricing was evaluated. Case 1 assumes that the installed cost is reduced by the current NSHP incentive. Case 2 assumes no NSHP incentive in the cost. The 30% federal solar investment tax credit is applied in both cases. Table 6: Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions Incremental Cost Case Single MF — Per Family Unit Source & Notes Average installed system costs in California from Go Solar 1) Includes current $3.35 / $3.03 / California(httr)://www.aosolarcalifornia.ca.aov/) reduced by NSHP incentive W DC W DC $0.50NVatt to reflect NSHP incentives & 30% for the solar investment tax credit.' 2) No NSHP $3.70 / $3.38 / Same assumptions as above but without the $0.50NVatt Incentive W DC W DC NSHP incentive Cost effectiveness is presented according to lifecycle customer benefit -to -cost ratio. The benefit -to -cost ratio is a metric which represents the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and financing of incremental costs. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated as follows: Lifecycle Customer Benefit -Cost Ratio = ° Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. As of March 2016, all new PG&E net energy metering (NEM) customers are enrolled in a time -of -use rate. fhttn://www.nee.com/en/mvhome/saveenerevmonev/plans/touiindex.oaee?). 5 SCE net surplus compensation rate based on 1-year average September 2015 — August 2016. SDG&E net surplus compensation rate based on 1-year average August 2015 —July 2016. 7 Avg. system cost for systems < IOkW (for the last 12 months) of $5.2WWatt for single family f httn:!%u ww.�-losolarcalifornia.ca.eov'). For multi -family systems, an average of the < 10 kW and > 10kW system cost ($4.37/Watt) was used; systems are expected to be typically greater than 10 kW, although not as large as some commercial systems reported on in the database. Page 5 September, 2016 t~ "6 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study (Annual utility cost savings * Lifecycle cost factor) / (First incremental cost * Financing factor) The Lifecycle cost factor is 19.6 and includes the following assumptions: • 30-year measure life & utility cost savings • 3%real discount rate • No utility rate escalation (conservative assumption) The financing factor is 1.068 and includes the following assumptions: • 30-year financing term • 4.5% loan interest rate • 3%real discount rate • 20% average tax rate (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions) Simple payback is also presented and is calculated using the equation below. Based on the terms described above the Lifecycle cost -to -benefit ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to a simple payback of 18 years. Simple payback = First incremental cost /Annual customer utility cost savings 2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalent COz emission savings were calculated using the following emission factors. Electricity factors are specific to California electricity production. Table 7. Equivalent COl Emissions Factors Source Electricity 0.724 lb. CO,-e / kWh U.S. Environmental Protection agency's 2007 eGRID data.' Natural Gas 11.7 lb. CO2-e / Therm Emission rates for natural gas combustion as reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency's GHG Equivalencies Calculator.' 3 Results 3.1 Single Family Results A comparison of cost effectiveness for each climate zone, with and without the NSHP incentive, is presented in Figure 1. Table 8 provides the results in tabular form for the case without the NSHP incentive, along with energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) savings. The Lifecycle benefit - to -cost ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to a simple payback of 18 years. The PV system capacity is sized based upon the values in Table 4 to provide approximately 80% of estimated annual kWh consumption with capacities ranging from 2.2 kW DC in mild climate zone 7 to 4.6 kW DC in hot climate zone 15. The solar package demonstrates cost effectiveness in all climate zones with a benefit -to -cost ratio ranging from 1 A 8 to 1.59 with the NSHP incentive and 1.07 to 1.44 without the NSHP incentive. Greenhouse gas (GHG) savings range from 25.7% to 63.8%. s httvs://www.eoa.eov/enerev'f4he-euuivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references 9 httas://www.eva.eov/enerav/ereenhouse-eas-euuivalencies-calculator Page 6 September, 2016 Page 7 2.0 1.8 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Figure 1: Single family cost effectiveness comparison + + + + ° + + + ° 0.4 0.2 + w/ NSHP Incentives ° w/o NSHP Incentives -Cost Effectiveness Threshold 0.0 N N N N n N N M N N N U U V U U U U U U U U U U N N N U U N N N N U U U N N U U U CLIMATE ZONE Table 8: Single Family PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results PV Elec % Utility Lifecycle Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit - Zone (kW) (kWh) Savings' Cost? Savings Payback Cost Ratio CZ1 3.0 4,041 30.4% $12,301 $719 17.1 1.07 CZ2 2.5 3,857 33.7% $10,041 $694 14.5 1.27 CZ3 2.6 4,049 42.5% $10,448 $732 14.3 1.29 CZ4 2.3 3,647 36.0% $9,226 $688 13.4 1.37 CZ5 2.3 3,810 41.9% $9,226 $725 12.7 1.44 CZ6 2.5 3,892 46.8% $10,041 $596 16.8 1.09 CZ7 2.2 3,546 4&4% $8,819 $639 13.8 1.33 CZ8 2.6 4,058 51.7% $10,448 $652 16.0 1.15 CZ9 2.5 4,026 47.1% $10,041 $674 14.9 1.23 CZ10 2.5 4,108 46.1% $10,265 $688 14.9 1.23 CZ11 3.5 5,533 44.9% $14,155 $1,007 14.1 1.31 CZ12 2.9 4,582 40.494 $11,894 $757 15.7 1.17 CZ13 3.7 5,680 47.2% $14,969 $1,040 14.4 1.27 CZ14 2.5 4,528 37.2% $10,265 $796 12.9 1.42 CZ15 4.6 7,670 63.8% $18,676 $1,303 14.3 1.28 CZ16 2.5 4,187 25.7% $10,041 $738 13.6 1.35 1 Based on CA electricity production and equivalent CO2 emission rates of 0.724 IbCOZe / kWh & 11.7 lb-0O2e / therm. Z Includes 10% markup for builder profit and overhead. $0.50 / W NSHP incentive not applied September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Stndy PV Elec % utility Lifecycle Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit - Zone I (kW) (kWh) Savings' I Cost2 Savings Payback I Cost Ratio to package costs 3.2 Multifamily Results A comparison of cost effectiveness for the multi -family prototype is presented in Figure 2. Table 9 provides the results in tabular form for the case without the NSHP incentive, along with energy and greenhouse gas savings. All multifamily results are presented on a per dwelling unit basis. The lifecycle benefit -to -cost ratio threshold of one is roughly equivalent to a simple payback of 18 years. The solar package demonstrates cost effectiveness in all climate zones with a benefit -to -cost ratio ranging from 1.16 to 1.59 with the NSHP incentive and 1.04 to 1.43 without the NSHP incentive. Greenhouse gas (GHG) savings range from 30.8% to 54.9%. The required PV capacity per apartment ranges from 1.3 kW DC in the mild climates to 2.1 kW DC in hot climates (CZ15). For the multifamily prototype 8-unit apartment building, this is equivalent to 10.4 to 16.8 kW for the building. 2.0 1.8 LLW 1.0 0.2 0.0 Figure 2: Multifamily cost effectiveness comparison + + + + ° + ° + ° + + + ° + + ° + e A t w/ NSHP Incentives ° w/o NSHP Incentives —Cost Effectiveness Threshold •i N M C N �D I� W C1 O rl N M d �A �p N N N N N N N N N N N ei N ei V U U U V V V V V N N N N N N N N N V V V V V V V CLIMATE ZONE Page 8 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effeetireness Study Table 9: Multifamily PV Package Cost Effectiveness Results PV Elec % utility Lifecycle Climate Capacity Savings Carbon Package Cost Simple Benefit - Zone (kW) (kWh) Savings' Costs2 Savings Payback Cost Ratio CZ1 1.6 2,141 35.5% $5,951 $361 16.5 1.11 CZ2 1.4 2,191 39.2% $5,207 $373 14.0 1.32 CZ3 1.5 2,368 46.6% $5,579 $361 15.5 1.19 CZ4 1.3 2,093 39.8% $4,835 $376 12.9 1.43 CZ5 1.4 2,355 46.9% $5,207 $360 14.5 1.27 CZ6 1.5 2,368 49.5% $5,579 $315 17.7 1.04 CZ7 1.3 2,129 46.2% $4,835 $364 13.3 1.38 CZ8 1.5 2,373 48.9% $5,579 $345 16.2 1.14 CZ9 1.4 2,287 45.4% $5,207 $365 14.3 1.29 CZ10 1.4 2,282 44.3% $5,207 $362 14.4 1.28 CZ11 1.7 2,707 44.2% $6,322 $456 13.9 1.32 CZ12 1.5 2,354 41.1% $5,579 $417 13.4 1.37 CZ13 1.8 2,782 45.9% $6,694 $466 14.4 1.28 CZ14 1.3 2,336 38.5% $4,835 $356 13.6 1.35 CZ15 2.1 3,513 54.9% $7,810 $526 14.8 1.24 CZ16 1.3 2,208 30.8% $4,835 $394 12.3 1.49 1 Based on CA electricity production and equivalent COZ emission rates of 0.724 IbCOZe / kWh & 11.7 Ib-COze / therm. z Includes 10% markup for builder profit and overhead. $0.50 / W NSHP incentive not applied to package costs 4 Conclusions & Summary This report finds the evaluated solar PV ordinance to be both feasible and cost effective, and reduces energy demand in all 16 California climates zones. The following describes the recommended PV sizing and requirements for all climate zones. The PV ordinance requires that all buildings meet code compliance for the 2016 Title 24, Part 6 without the use of the PV compliance credit (PVCC). Projects are also required to install a PV system based on the capacities shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Lifecycle benefit -to -cost ratios for adding PV to a 2016 code compliant building are above one, demonstrating cost effectiveness for both the single family and multifamily prototypes in all climate zones. This report has identified that an ordinance that requires compliance with the 2016 building code, without taking the PV credit, combined with PV systems sized to the values shown in Table 3 and Table 4 is cost effective for both single family and low-rise multifamily dwellings and can be adopted by cities and counties within investor -owned utility territories across California consistent to the requirements of the Public Resources Code (25402.1(h)) and to the benefit of the jurisdiction, its residents, and the state. Page 9 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study 5 References CEC. 2016a. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2015-037-CMF. June 2015. California Energy Commission. httr)://www.energv.ca.gov/2015i)ublications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-CMF. pdf CEC. 2016b. 2016 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2015-039-CMF. June 2015. California Energy Commission. httD://www.eneray.ca.ciov/2015Dublications/CEC- 400-2015-039/C EC-400-2015-039-C M F. pdf CEC. 2016c. 2016 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400- 2015-024-CMF-REV. June 2017. California Energy Commission. htto://www.energv.ca.gov/20151)ublications/CEC-400-2015-024/CEC-400-2015-024-CM F- REV.pdf Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. `Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards." http://www.energy. ca.gov/title24/2016standards/Drerulemakinq/documents/2014-07- 09 workshop/2017 TDV Documents/ Page 10 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Appendix A — Prescriptive Package The following presents the residential prescriptive package as printed in the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CEC, 2016a). TABLE 150.1-A COMPONENT PACKAGE -A STANDARD BUILDING DESIGN C 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 m n 0' NR NR NR R8 NR NR NR R8 R8 R8 R8 R8 R8 R8 R8 R8 z `n � N 0 0 Ol 6- H C » QNU NR NR NR R6 NR NR NR Rfi R6 R6 R6 R6 R6 R6 R6 R6 1 c fn E Q c S o � w � R38 R38 R30 R38 R30 R30 R30 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 R38 O c � a E NR REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ NR 3) O C A `o } c •.� K y 3 > O •� o o ofC Q N Z tn" NR NR NR R18 NR NR NR R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 R18 C R 0 W _ U — m 0 N N Q c NR NR NR R13 NR NR NR R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 m E L C w 5 R 38 R 38 R 30 R 38 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 39 R 38 R 38 O — A NR REQ REQ NR REQ REQ REQ NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR � m C p, U C � zu s R 38 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 30 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 R 38 U Page 1 l September, 2016 Floors Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study o L cU ^ O c NR REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ NR TABLE 150.1-A COMPONENT PACKAGE -A STANDARD BUILDING DESIGN (CONTINUED) Clima a Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 1�a U E U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 U 0.051 2 0.051 N o U 0.070 U 0.070 u 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 u 0.070 U 0.070 U 0.070 U 0 070 U c 3 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 f R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 o.os9 .05 a Q e w° U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.125 U 0.1025 U 0 125 U 3 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 5.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 R 8.0 0..0' 0 w vw o� S u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.670 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 u 0.070 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 R13 3 0 N v u 0,200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.201) u 0.200 u 0.200 u 0.200 m Q Ti R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R5.0 R50 w Slab Perimeter Raised Concrete Raised Aged Solar Low- Reflectance m I a c slope Thermal O a -y c. d Emittance •> = Aged Solar r m o Steep Reflectance 0 Slopec Thermal Emittance Maximum U-factor 7 t m ° Maximum SHGC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 U 0.037 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 R19 U 0.092 U 0.092 U O 269 U 0.269 U0.269 U 0.269 U 0.269 U 0.269 U 0.269 U 0 269 U 0.092 U 0.138 U 0.092 R 8.0 R8.0 RO RO RO RO RO RO RO RO R8.0 R 4.0 R8.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.63 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.75 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.75 0.75 I 0.75 0.75 0.32 032 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 NR 0.25 NR 0.25 NR 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Page 12 September, 2016 U 0.070 U 0 070 u R 13 R 13 0.066 R15 U 0.100 R10 NR U 0.037 R.19 U 0.092 R80 NR NR 0.20 0.75 0.32 025 U 0.100 U R 10 0.053 R19 NR U 0.58 R 7.0 U 0 037 U 0.037 R 19 R 19 U 0.138 U 0.092 R 4.0 R 8.0 0.63 NR 1 0.75 NR 0.20 NR 0.75 NR 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.25 ]I Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Studv Maximum Total Area 20% 211% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 211% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Maximum West NR 5% NR 5% NR 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Facing Ar>a TA 3LE 150.1-A COMPONENT PACKAGE-H STANDARD BALDING DESIGN (C(DNTINUED) Climate Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 m�rn u Electric -Resistance Allowed No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No c If gas, AFUE MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN N m x If Heat Pump, HSPFs MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN SEER MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN m Refrigerant Charge A o Verification or Fault NR REQ NR NR NR NR NR REQ REQ REO REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ NR y Indicator Display Whole House FantO NR NR NR NR NR NR NR REQ REQ REQ REQ REO REQ REO NR NR 2 w NYi u c y a a Central Fan Integrated Ventilation REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REO REQ REQ REQ REO REQ > N = System Fan Efficacy x o, m -6 Duct Insulation R-8 R-8 R-6 R-8 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 Q u ^� c N o §150.1(c)9A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA m c Duct Insulation R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 u 0 §150.1(c)9B REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ REQ X w `a 3 d All Buildings System Shall meet Section x 150.1(c)8 Page 13 September, 2016 K.s Page 14 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Studv September, 2016 e. VI Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Footnote requirements to TABLE 150.1-A:to 1. Install the specified R-value with no air space present between the roofing and the roof deck. 2. Install the specified R-value with an air space present between the roofing and the roof deck. Such as standard installation of concrete or clay tile. 3. R-values shown for below roof deck insulation are for wood -frame construction with insulation installed between the framing members. 4. Assembly U-factors can be met with cavity insulation alone or with continuous insulation alone, or with both cavity and continuous insulation that results in an assembly U-factor equal to or less than the U-factor shown. Use Reference Joint Appendices JA4 Table 4.3.1, 4.3.l(a), or Table 4.3.4 to determine alternative insulation products to meet the required maximum U-factor. 5. Mass wall has a thermal heat capacity greater than or equal to 7.0 Btu/h-ft'. "Interior" denotes insulation installed on the inside surface of the wall. 6. Mass wall has a thermal heat capacity greater than or equal to 7.0 Btu/h-fr'. "Exterior' denotes insulation installed on the exterior surface of the wall. 7. Below grade "interior' denotes insulation installed on the inside surface of the wall. 8. Below grade "exterior" denotes insulation installed on the outside surface of the wall. 9. HSPF means "heating seasonal performance factor." 10. When whole house fans are required (REQ), only those whole house fans that are listed in the Appliance Efficiency Directory may be installed. Compliance requires installation of one or more WHFs whose total airflow CFM is capable of meeting or exceeding a minimum 1.5 efm/square foot of conditioned floor area as specified by Section 150.1(c)12. 11. A supplemental heating unit may be installed in a space served directly or indirectly by a primary heating system, provided that the unit thermal capacity does not exceed 2 kilowatts or 7,000 Btu/hr and is controlled by a timelimiting device not exceeding 30 minutes. 12. For duct and air handler location: REQ denotes location in conditioned space. When the table indicates ducts and air handlers are in conditioned space, a HERS verification is required as specified by Reference Residential Appendix RA3.1.4.3.8. `" Single family buildings are modeled with Option B and multifamily buildings are modeled with Option C. Page 15 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Appendix B - Utility Rate Tariffs Following are the PG&E electricity, both standard and time -of -use, and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending March 2016. Page 1 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study T P1staiedeeandBn�ieVinpsny Revised CaI.P.U.C.SWWNa MGM San i=rerrism CahnCanceAmg Revised Cal. P.U.C.SArattNa 36471E U 39 ELECTRIC SCHEDULE E-1 Sheet 1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICES APPLICABILITY: This so' bole is applicable to single-phase and polyphase residetrtal service in single-family dwellings and in fiats and apartments separately metered by PG&E: to smgle- phase and polyphase service in common areas in a muthfamty complex (see Special Cnrdita tf . and to all single-phase and polyphase farm serwoe on the premises operated by ^.he person whose residence is supplied through the same meter. The provisions of Schedule S—Stanoby Service Special Condiboris t through 6 shi also apply to customers whose premses are regularly supplied in part (but nvt in whole) try elects: energy hum a nonubllity source of sups These cusbutini will pay monthly reservabm charges as specified under Section 1 of Schedule S, in addition to all applicable Schedule E-1 charges. See Special Conditions 11 and 12 of this rate sctredule to exemptions to standby charges TERRITORY This raw schedule applies everywhere PG&E provides electric service. RATES. Tdd boded service charges are calculated using the dtal rates below. Custontars on Otis udw" ere iabjec to the delivery minimum ba amount shown below applied In the dimbi pvloe d6•.br7 (isto all rate cornpawenls other tt a the generation ratel, to addition., lotd bundled changes will include applicable generation charges pea k'Wh for at k'Wh usage. Customers recerwing a medical baseline allowance shall pay For all usage in excess et 200 Percent of baseline at a rate SO 04" per kWh less than the applicable rate for usage in excess of 200 percent ct baseline. No portion of the rates pad by customers that receive a Medica'. Baseline allowence shot be used to pay the DWR Bond charge. For these customers, the Conservation Incentive Adjustment is calculated residually based on the total rase less the sum of Transmission, Transmission Rate Adjustments.. Reliabiliq Services.. Distribution. Generation. Public Ptapase Programs, Nuclear Decommissiarung, Competmion Transition Charges (CTCI. New System Generation Charges,' and Energy Cog Recovery Annount- Customers receiving a medical baseline allowance shall also receive a 50 percent disgust on the delivery minimum bill a torn shown below LL%rect Access IDA) and Community Choice Aggregalion (CCA:I charges shall be calculated in accordance with the paragraph in this rate schedule ailed Billing TOTAL RATES Torah Energy Rates ($ per kWh) Baseline Usage $0. la212 101%- 13D°,k of Baseline S0240M 11) 131 % - 20D% of Baseline SO240M (R} 20U1%-300%ofBaseline SO.39999 nit Over 300%at Baseline 50. 399M (II Delivery Minimum Bill Amount IS per meter per day) SO 32054 Calihama Climate Credit (per household, per seiru-amual payi occurring in the April and October bill cycles) (S28.14) 'Pi Decision 11-12-031. New System Generation Charges are eflectiwe 1ytQMZ Advxe Letter Mu 481 aE-A Deasian db. 15-07-001 and E4782 1C8 Page 2 Issued by I]aw Filed 1131 2016 Steven Malinua t Egedive June 1. 2016 Senior Vice President Resorurm No Regulatory Affairs September, 2016 38 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Pxific lies and Flmildc Caarpany Revised Cal. P. U C Sheer No. 36713-E IT. San Franosco. Cahfonua CarrceNng Revised Cat P.0 C. Sheef No. 365ME U 39 ELECTRIC SCHEDULE E-TOU Sheet 2 RESIDENTIAL TIME -OF -USE SERVICE RATES (Con!! d.) Total Energy Rates (S per kWh) Summer Total Usage Baseline Credit (Applied to Baseline Usage Only) WYnrer Total Usage Baseline Credit (Applied to Baseline Usage Only) Delivery Minimum Bill Amount ($ per meter per day) OPTION A TOTAL RATES PEAK OFF-PEAK S0.40327 (1) ($0.11709) (Rt S0.28530 (1) ($0.11709h (Rf S0 328St $0.32769 (1) (S0.11700) (R) $0.27100 (1) ($0.11709) (R) California Climate Credit (per household. per semi-annual payment occurring in the April and October bill cycles) (S28.14) Total bundled service charges shown on customer's bills are unbundled according to the comp& !nt rates shown below. Where the delivery mmanum bill amount applies. the customer s bill will equal the sum of (1) the delivery minimum bill amount plus (2) for bundled service, the generation rate times the number of kWh used For revenue accounting purposes. the revenues from the delivery minimum bill amount will be assigned to The Transmission, Transmission Rate Adjustments, Reliability Services. Public Purpose Programs. Nuclear Decommissioning, Competition Transition Charges. Energy Cost Recovery Amount DWR Bond. and New System Generation Charges' based on kWh usage times the corresponding unbundled rate component per kWh, with any residual revenue assigned to Distribution.' Perr Decision 11-12-031, New System Generation Charges are effective 1012012 This same assignment of revenues applies to direct access and community, choice aggregation customers AoVice Leger No 4810-E-A Decision No. 15-07-001 and E-4782 2C9 Page 3 (Carilwted) Issued by Debe Fled Msr 31, 2016 Stevan MahtipM Effective June 1, 2016 seraw Vice Presoded Resolution No. Regularary Alfwrs September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Pacific Gas and Eke Uric Company Revised Caf. P.0 C. Sheet No. 326W-G e San Francisco. Caidbmta Cancetinq Revised Ca? P U C Sheet Na. 32620-G a U 39 GAS SCHEDULE G-1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Sheets APPLICABILITY. Psis rate schedwie' apples to rar.ral ;as ser: r to Care Ed -Use Custornevs on PG&E s Transmisaun and,'or IAssibuEan Systems To quakfy sen'ce must be tG irdrr9d:rally- metered single family premises ii reside'r tiai use. rc9udtng tic In a muldiamily complex. and Aa separa;eit.,melered coma rzn areas r a mut[Yamily ocplea where Schedules GM, GS. cw GT are riot a4plicable. Comrrcn area arxo €that are seq'arately metered try PG&E have an epbcri cf viiincring V, a care u,nmenwl rate sdteduia- Corse ar area aocou:ts are these acocunts t*at pre id a gas ser,'re to .omn-an use mom as c l5ned in R..ie 1. TERRITORY. Sc"edule G' apoies ewe ry fiwe within PG&E s natural: gas Service Terreory. RATES C:,stomers a^ this schedule pay a Procure, nl Charge and a Tra+iispenaeior Charge.. per mete+. as shown below. T' e Ttsr -spwtatiar Charge wilt be rw less tthan the Minimum Trarx„pertrrr Chrge as folmws� lfnarnt Tranmoriatran CirPer Dav $0 09B63 C / Lill Procuranert[ $020960 {Ri 50.209W (R) Trsle..Wka inn /jww S0.81592 51.30547 TOW $162552 tR) 51-51507 (R) Ildli6fJ12=13r0wwn %w uir= Customers envad under this schedule are sulglim to a gas P4k Ptspose Program {PPP) Surcharge undo Sdtadule G?PPS. See Pr6impary Statement Pan B. fix die Default Tair f Raw Canprxhents. The Procurement Charge rm this schedu r Is equivalent to Me rate shown an inM1xntalianal Schedule G-CP—Gas Procurement Se c& rz Care Ens -Use Cusco rim. BASELINE The dl, ed quarsires of gas shown below are billed at the rates for baseline use QUANTITIES. BASELINE QUANTITIES IThenns Per Day Per Dwe4ng Unit) 8aselire Sum, me Writer Territories— EfiectaveApr. 1. 2016 EkKfi- a Nov. 1, 2015 P o46 215 0 069 196 R 046 179 S 0.46 1.92 T 0,09 1,79 V 069 1.79 W 0.46 1.69 X 059 1.96 Y 0.85 2,55 ' PG&E a gas tarr!s are avaaxre cNne of nva;.ye ccm nx Mw Transrig . [U.W ices J iGy i. u.tmelertC YrJrlh d MAliff.t VWMI CUSW.n serMk uPftr paS ri Srf�eiuhes GS and GT TM app&abt WseWe lair" is 6HGOe9.e PM"M" tVaha+ Pan A Adtrre Letter No. 3715-G DOOS rr No. 97-10,065 & 9"7-025 106 Page 4 Issued by sravan i) &&moM See Vice PrPu6sno Regulatory Athos (Continued) Date Filed May 24, 2016 Eiiectrve 3une 1. 2016 Rasorufm No September, 2016 40 Local PTV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Following are the SCE electricity tariffs, both standard and time -of -use, and SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. roll LJ t 1)ISC)N Sougiarn California Edison Revised Cat PUC Sheet No 59026-E Rosemead. Caltlorrlia (U 338-E} Canceling Revised Cal. Pl1C Shea/ No. 58237-E schedule D DOMESTIC SERVICE (COnanued) ne.iv 9ervlce 6etelrNOr:' Tine' uc•.. 1 rrnxcC E1eey flliaeS1wr1 Tfe0ei0aY Becton 5ve�lce Bvrervae D 110199 0' O W919 fi 1 10 0 121 YlPM D.00 i!R! I I I 0 M919 0l 10 O 2:21 NreeeMer tirNcc' 10V.. M)A r eelawle. e+sreller 013%T'r DW919(1) 1000022) Yrelae D. 13wr It, 0 M919 (1) 10 0=2) c3wr M%at eMne-Ou+vnCr 022? IR1 0069f9l11 10000221 YPdMr 1Ri 0 Z2��iJ((1n'6 aW919ill 1000022) /, Banc OlwP-*A%wow � erbr.trny Aooeiaaouenn 0031 MFfwlley ADDYralAmmlm e0211 MaYrtele Malawi, -1I 1111"M r BbplesFanev A¢venlodMlon 0320 MrJF, FilrrNl Kcomm(aJwrlon 0.329 MO,vrmnx C a a 1TFe0 l eawielnr• • ifMOMmolo 5ayiwFansey Accalel+'baaiiDn aloe MttrRP'srd'/ AGvcmr-Ixlaebn aim Commoveconele Crel•t1 peat) Pori Tire Maine . 10 ^m 10.751 lileea Teat Re t"ode Wow"abli'm wft.A l•/ I t+we is ar SAee12 Mwerere YMos 0uaiara r aMlh a SOexs a xwucuaue 9aeeare w0orela w eeeoeatl r arYrrewT efelealrK Ierr1 M /eeeare a h*= Thin 0atse.aa aulee a Meadow - w win Dell ry � Enrtraiage, Ms ale aveetAWe aera aurae a rain 11111111 0e ••• Tee 0r10o0a+e Ceegretarr TfwMCw ckww tCTC) t! 14a woosl aralAat a eaaoreilod a to Uri eonavers Of [iseealm 1 Taw - Tube oremf' t ante men now rWMt>dle a 111u1wa Un"m pea. Aocaomli WAS " C nr laely C.+mim AGW VWWon erUea 1CCA tWraa% Oleeeee. OAaraa OA oral CG1 e/1IIra Oilearrws H Net Sdaad 10 Oro DTAiaC rMe COrilDwlra 00 ON WO OM Dal [[china oar tar OWIMC w aroe0aa 11V 0011eOae GAAM W edled/e OCA.CRS 2 Otaiarolm - The Oalrwalan rMrr are ep0atrlble aMY b Eurwaea Swan. Clsbmem 3 ONaOC • t2e0ei0eeer YOa�n Iarewrl as 11X19Ft) �irOr CreCt - ru mom eiesnleam m iPe OWR Eneetry CmaL see M e0aq CWkWeam raaie Calalbn r o1s StA. Ve e A000ea en M OtaW a aer Nay9 4 semi-011.KlAft Dee Ilie 5e W Co*00ons r rer SrflealPe 1ex rmne 11'IOTYb1 (Conhnuedl (To be uns ned by ubllty) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 3401-E R O Mctlois Date Filed May 2. 2016 Decision 16403-030 Senior Vice President Effect" hm 1, 2016 rx Resolution Page 5 September, 2016 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study L I DIS(]!V Southern Califonaa Edison Revised Cal PUC Sheet No 59059-E Rosernead. California IU 338-El Canceihng Revised Cal PUC Sheet No 58244E Schedule TOU-D-T Sheet 2 TIME -OF -USE TIERED DOMESTIC (Continued) RATES i1DYsar> Service C<rler i0L1' IKk"' tTY1RC Eriam C.0moe . S'kwlVM Tlaw sllr,,me, sOatOn - 0,Peak lard l fall b 130% Of BortrOPe) 0low) 111 02i6W IR1 <000=1 Llyd a (able aami 130%cf Baseline) 0.1&152 (R) 021a00 JR1 1000OZ21 Bumw sawan - dtPoak Level l rlyb 130%a/Ba4eev41 alQW3111 00"110, t0 OOM.-I Level 111 Wre M 13^ or Baeaba) 0. 10352 (RIi a 09911 114 M 0OW21 W nb Be40011 . (nAWNI tevvca 11W n 130%Cl Bee 010023(1) 0D900D rR) (O 000221 Laud a dbla irw1130%or swi i aIW52 Oil) 00WW(RI (0000221 Weller Ba -oul- ak Leaal44wb 130%W BasekrN/ 0WW3(1) 00424901 to 00=1 LWM B 9be IFB1 130%al 8AwQ l 0.1 W M) 0 0V49 (n rO 000221 Bob cnwga - Lsb4r4Dev onowForney arocannnakoon Dull kB9l Wb AOCmaaDOaaP1 0 024 Meawn ra Gara.oa' - $00ahm Mary lar"a-Farnai a¢allnKid". 0 32a YMI-Firey M[ WMnOft on D 329 kalial.an Move Baaate UNW*V r' - SMWI Inlay snpeFaneM AarxanroWaai DIU kA98ianay AOCOMWOeaaD. D 10a an"Wo jygW Week, 130 WI Wekm188 ABb11ab Robs br E, -M dkOskn - % 10D 00' Peak Tally Rebste - SkWI, Peak T" ReR.ab arenatMnD bcena - $- v 11 11, C i9e A aimare Crime a. Wommum yndn Itve lurty ry sanxe EnerOr LMrOe pier nee arwilwable save cry I. less whin live » libIMMENIft"Migsweam"Pakrapair at ,ivaaw mthe arip"abb Opocwcxnmm msr2leo I pN (llwlpaapr1a171ame OAelee (C TG) W S(e C0e101 Der ice. b 1ed Aaw b03 UD a Gon.""a d cf.er..on 1 TeYI a 111Y QWary B4.N1a1 nMea lee aODarat4e b Ytlae BasNb, Q'BCI AeDsa mA2 4ap COmmule} Ge1Dte Amlgbll IBRI tMA 1111IMNte? CeMon'en Critelli DA arq CCA Bbvlea QdOIR! N Cal 01,1111111011 b ►ie VWRBC rate COMPOla d 90 GRUMM4tabki a l Pay Ire r34VR8C at 1soVWM e3 gCftdWk D"M b BOW "CCA-CRS 2 Oee4akbl - The Den rats are awd,,ada or* to Ylie Bblasa Call b 3 - DaOY '. 0 Water Re KUKaa WMMI) OW COO - Far a kfferri4.lorr o1 fie V W R E"WW CANK M &W Bib tak.beial svrcra C«, 1a ne. s rmarb 4 AMMO an W apse 0411& Der nrxlsena+tl aarinr+l*.ralM See sie SpdY Car on. a en ScheQAe IW 1r1Dle eBBlxlibrr (Continued) (To be MwerrW by UVIty I Issued by (To be inserted by CBI. PUC) "in 3401-E o O Nvhmri Doe Fled 2`2`016 Derision 16-03-030 Senior Vice President rY Effective -Jun I.N76 Resodullion Page 6 September, 2016 42 SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA GAS COMPANV Revised LUS.*.W. -LES.CALHN)K lA ChWELNG Revised Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study C.U.. P.L.C. SHEET NO 52782-0 CI L P.C.C. SHEET FO 52751-G Schedule- No. GR ptF_SIL,FNTIAL SERVICE nc Itl GR GR-C and GT-R Rates] Sheet 1 PI K.& Ui n The GR rate is applicable to natural gas procurement service to individually metered residential cusiotners The GR-C. crossover rate, is a core procuicnunt option for individually mclered residential :ore transportation customers with annual consumption mvr 50.000 therms. as set forth in Special ( ondition 10- The GT-R rate is applieabhc to Core Aggrcgatwm Transportation (CAT) service to indmdua€By metered residential customets. as set forth in Special C'onditiLm I I . The California Aleertrate Rates for Energy (C'AREI discount of 201!w reflected as a separate line item on the bill, is applicable to incomcgualificd households that most the requirements for the CARE program as sct forth in Schedule No. G-CARE. TERRITORY Applicable throughout the service territory RATES GR GR-C GT-R Cuskuncr C'haree, per mcler per day: ........ _—......._..16.4390 16.438t 16.439c For--Spacc Heating Only" customers. a daily C WS1Otner Charge applies during the winter period from No%cn+cr l through April 30' :...._-......._...33A490 33.14W 33.149F Haselinc Raic, per thcrin (bascline usage defined in Special Conditions 3 and 4): Protummcnt Charge. 7-......................._....._....... 34.536C 34.536t WA Transmission Charre:'.............. _....... .............. .._ 56.2800 56.2fi t 55.758C Total Baseline Charge: ........ ..._.._....._............__. 90.816t 90.816t 55758e lion-Rasrline Rate. per therm lumge in excess of baseline usagcl: Procurement Charec. '................................... 34.536C 34.536t WA Transmission Charm: ........... ._.......__.._..___.. 92.2801! 82.2�.F8{ 81.75U Total Non-ltaaschm Charge:.......,.._.._....._....... 116.8160 116.8104 81-75U For the summer period, beginning May 1 through October 31, with sonic mceptions, usage will be accumulated to at (east 20 Cc f 1100 cubic feed before billing. t Footnotes cod inue next page.) ,TO BE WEERTED BY LITIUTY'i ADVICE LET•rER Ha 4989 rEC15�ON NO Page 7 (Continued) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY CAL. PVC) Darr Skeptic DATE FILED 3u1 7t 201E Vier Pmaemt EFFECTIVE Jul 10, 2016 nrr iWa Anars fwsauTroft ro G-3351 September, 2016 4y Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study Following are the SDG&E electricity, both standard and time -of -use, and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. s E Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 27650-E San Dlepo Gas A Elecfrx Cat'"" ss, DIeOo Cadbmla Canceling Fk; sed Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 26948-E SCHEDULE DR sheet 1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE f includes Rates far DR -Lb APPLICABILITY Applicable to dormestic service for lighting. heating, cGakingwager heating. and power. m combination thereof. in single family dwellings, flats. and apartments, separately metered by the Latrty, to service used in oornmon for residential pur s by tenants in multi -family dnellings under Special Condition 8: to any approved combination of r� ;tientiai and nonresidential servaoe on the same mener. and to in cdert� farm service under Special Condition 7 This schedule is also applicable to customers rl, lI ytng for the Calfto Alternate Rates for Energy (CAREI Program andior Medical Baseline, residing in singte-family wcomnrrodawns, separalely metered by the Utility. and may include Non-profit Group Living Factlities and OualiRed Aghcuftural Employee Housing Facilities. it such facilities qualify to receive service under the terms and mndiions of Schedule E-CARE. The rates or CARE and Medical Baseline customers are identified in the rates tables below as DR-U and DR-MB rates. respectively. Customers on this schedule may also qualify for a semi-annual California Climate Credit St 17,44) per Schedule GF1G-ARR Within the entire territory served by the Unity. RATES Des crip0pn - DR Rates UDC TOW DwR-bC EEcc Ma Tstbl de Rex Rex DWR creien bummer. Baselnc EnatRy (SMWni 0.054b0 1 O W53S 12 01 0 IM54 I D Move 13ox a Basepne a 29 5 R 0 OD5a I 01 035149 R iRYrlers aasef.,, EnetOy (L'kvml a1a w 1 0OM39 r'0MGa 0 i"!ie I D Move 139%of sat a o.25737 R aa0]39 CMCa aJIWC R Ml M 8411 ILOay) UDC Total DWR-ec EECC Rate Deacapbab-DR hales TNY Rea! Rate Rate DWR C"AM Hummer - CARE Raxa1 aas~l E.i,"(LRWb' a0]223 1 o.Cocoa a12 1 O. tWvo 7 Atxt. 130'.e o1 Baserare a.2nw R o WoUo C t-9 !l 0 W31, R D IR\rtar - CARE Rab•t asseipe Enctay(LkWh, 010001 1 a.D30.3a 008604 0W<!5 1 Atnve 130.1 of eat Pa`e a.2a,i" R o owoo C OM04 0 3] 0 R D Wit MB41 ILOa y, 016/ 01" 1CoMnued) rc �c Issued by Date Filed Jun 29.2016 Advice 1-tr. No 2861-E-A Dan Skepee Effective Jul 1. 2016 Vice PTesidern Decision No. 15-07-001 Regulatory Affairs Resolution No, E4767 Page 8 September, 2016 44 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study i Cr e R�uised CRI. P. U C. Sheet No. 26962{ son OleOo r;ai a Ei�rx Cornwr: S. caarOr,m Canceling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 26908-E SCHEDULE DR-SES Sheet 1 DOMESTIC TIME -OF -USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM APPLICABILITY Service under this schedule is available on a voluntary basis for individually metered residential n3stomers with Solar Energy Systems. Service is IimAed to individually metered residential customers with a Solar Energy System with domestic service For kighlmg, heating. cookitig, water heating. and power. or combination thereof, in single family dwellings and flats. OIuaifyirag Calilomia Altemative Rases for Energy (CARE) customers are eligible for service on this schedule.. as further described under Special Condition a of this schedule. Customers on this schedule may also quafa(y, for a semi-annual Califomia Climate Credit S(17.441 per Schedule GHG-ARR. TERRITORY 4lrrthln the entire Ien-du y served by the Utility. RATES UM TWN owarec EECC Rate 4 Oex rlp!Ipn - OR-BES Ra Rath Rile DW11i Cretut Total Rate ErYrly CO6'pe5 ;j k'Nr On.Peaa - slat+mer a IM" I a omvi 1 0.IX2.3 R 0.40397 R semlfwu-1ki,nmer a1m33 I OoW3e 1 009'J30 R 0.22904 R Oa -Peak - Swt a. 120M I a omm I a Or332 R 0.20TOa R 9em1-Peak - wlM ' a 1 jam I 0.00E39 1 o m,59 R 021533 R OO.Pam - WIrMH a 1m30 I a owI aL902a R 02 200 R b . Bill IL 1av 0 329 0 323 f1k TMI r4Mes ¢via` of UDC Ellleaue DWR-SC fDr9 11 le M V WaMr Resaxes Rmr3 CMW , aro 5chc34e EECC I1� Envoy Caemodtr COB) cafes, well Ste EECC C 110 110. COW I }Tea cuaGlmeri Ie+YNe T IOe(montOY OMi I21 T¢b� FmRa Qrvn6'fb0 V¢ M nlMla'+en t+B 2aelae m+f oW!r v:FOh a-u' MHaxl urnx Ynm J4k1'M OBcvenars h bbl raFci ytl CY 0ira9 Ac¢ss ITN.)artM Conn nh Ceaka AwrwO ,a CCAI NYi'nleri art Weleree ri Srlleale DA-CRSa CCACRS. reapecMlY 13) OWR-RC rhl m W W t lo CARE w MCOeal Baacfw cuslx UDC Ratan CeWy/M#-RY T,alus YM !�W no CR LYC as lr A UOC TOW Pnem� f 1s.RWO1 On -Peak - Summer 002943 I 0.0030r R 001241 1 0WCIZ I O.Wide I 000039 1000013 R 0.00000 1 0.120D 1 SCm4Peak-Sufmlar 002943 I OW307 R 001241 1 000c52 1 000100 I 0a0039 1000013 R ooa0110 1 0. imm I MR .k- sunmen 002943 I OWW7 R 001241 1 0W032 I Owl" I Ra0039 1000013 R 0.0=if) 1 01m3m I Rema_Peak- wlMef 0.02943 1 0.00307 R 001.241 1 000032 1 000100 I 00003a I OOOa/3 R 0.00000 1 012mm 1 oR.Peak- wlnlee 002943 I 008397 R 00*241 1 0M052 I 0WIMO I o0o039 1000013 R o00000 1 0.126321 1 mmim1Le BR 1s,myl 0 329 0.329 )Continued) 109 Issued tryDate Filed D11f129-2015 Advice Ltr. No. 2840-E Dan Skopec Effective Jan 1. 2016 Vim Presidem Decision No Regul;tiary Affairs Resdutlon No 0 Page 9 September, 2016 45 Local PV Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study DORevised Cal, P.U.0 Sheet No. 21921-G Gon daec Oaa a EMcerr _o.rta�{ sar. or c mero . Canceling Revised Cal P U C Sheet No. 219WG SCHEDULE OR Sheet 1 RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS SERVICE ilrn9udes Rates tar +R +R - +T i +T -A 1 APPLICABILITY The GR rate is applicable to natural gas procurement service for w4vdually mialered residential customers. The GR-C. cross -over rate. rs a core procurement option for rrdividually metered resrdeneal core transportation customers with annual consumpow over 50.00D tnerms. as "I forth in Spatial Condition 10 The GTQGTCA rate is appltcable to intrastate gas .. r services to rdrwdually metered residential cusicimars. as set forth in Special Cordetbon 11. Cusbnters taking service under this schedule may be eligibis for a 20% California Alternate Rate for Energy (CARE) program discount, reflected as a separate line nem on the bill, if they qualify to receive service u*ider the [arms and conditions of Schedule G-CARE TERRITORY Within the enure terraory served natural gas by ate utility RATES nT JGTCT A' kdWkU FZte per ltterm fbasekne usage defined in Special Cordrocens 3 and 4) Procurement Charge` $O 34501 SO 34561 1 UA Tranamirescxt�.harne 40 90805 so Total Baseline Charge. $1.25386 $1.25366 1 $O 90805 Non-Basekne Rate. per there" (usage in excess of basekne usage). Procurement Charge' ... ._. .... .._ SO.34561 S034561 1 WA Transmission Charge . ... .......... $1 D8354 $1,08354 $t.08354 TOW Non-B&Se"MCharge: .............. ........_. S1_42915 S142915 1 $1.08354 't The rains for axe IrwapoAation-ori oA ss ws, w#h fr axcapbon at customers takt service undo Schedule GT- NGV. irtduds any FBW Sel wwit Ptooaeda IttetwitimMdim Account (FSPMA) credit adtetments T1w dwps is s ipicabla b Wily Prauar+ral Csataarn and ixJudes the GPC and GPC-A Prowrtwrt Charges shim M Schedule GM w ch am aoged b dtarV etosMly as set forth m Special CatdNm T. ICon➢n i Isstter)�y Dole Filed Ail 7,2016 Advice Ur No 2409-G Dan Skepec Effec." ill 10. 2016 Vice President Oecis+ar, No Regulatory Aftars Resolution No Page 10 September, 2016 t.. 46 ATTACHMENT #3 117 1;" PALM spy �y a V N i ~c0 ' .� � Opt�� � c4``f°R,� CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 23, 2016 STUDY SESSION SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING MANDATORY SOLAR INSTALLATION POLICY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Office of Sustainability SUMMARY This item is being presented to discuss mandating solar energy installations for new construction by amendment of certain provisions of chapter 8.04 and adding section 8.04.71 relating to mandating. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff as appropriate. BACKGROUND The California Building Standards Commission approved the 2016 California Building Standards Code and this code will become effective on January 1, 2017. Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. Section 101.7.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code further provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code, local climatic, geological or topographical conditions may include local environmental conditions as established by the City. On May 17, 2016, the Palm Springs Sustainability Commission discussed making recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed local amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, and local climatic, geological and topographical conditions as related to mandating solar energy installations on new or re- modeled construction projects. At that meeting, the Sustainability Commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to ITEM NO. -" ' �' 48 City Council Staff Report June 23, 2016 - Page 2 Discussion of Solar Energy Ordinance Chapter 8 mandate solar making necessary local findings and adopt local amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. STAFF ANALYSIS: The production of electricity by solar energy systems provides an environmentally friendly source of renewable energy thereby reducing the City's dependency on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. In 2016, California has seen a growing trend in the number of cities passing ordinances requiring all new buildings and additions to put up solar voltaic panels. The City's Sustainability Commission Subcommittee on Green Building/Solar began discussion of this issue and started researching green building and solar policies towards the end of 2015. The Sustainability Commission's Green Building/Solar Subcommittee met on May 18, 2016 with the City's Director of Building and Safety, Solar Plans Examiner and Sustainability Manager to review a proposed ordinance. It was suggested that a phased approach to implementing new solar mandates affect single family new construction first. In addition, the Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) was contacted and met with staff on May 25, 2016 to review the proposed regulation. The DVBA preferred a phased approach a and requested that a number of public input meetings including all stakeholders such as the building industry, chamber of commerce and neighborhood groups be conducted prior to potential adoption. The DVBA also stated that they would like to see more remodels and old housing stock be upgraded to meet the new energy efficiency standards. On June 15, 2016 the Sustainability commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee met again with City Staff and the City Council subcommittee on sustainability. At that meeting further recommendations were made and revisions to a draft ordinance prepared by the Sustainability Commission Sub -Committee were recommended. The draft ordinance prepared by the subcommittee requiring solar systems has not yet been reviewed by the City Attorney. The Sustainability Commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee has reviewed the existing city building code as well as examples of solar mandates brought forward by other California cities. Other California cities have considered the advantages of solar installations and have adopted ordinances requiring them in new construction. Lancaster and Sebastopol adopted mandatory solar ordinances in 2013, and San Francisco and Santa Monica have also recently adopted ordinances. The Sebastopol ordinance requires solar to be installed in the event of large additions, remodels, alterations or repairs to an existing building. In light of these recent ordinance adoptions across the state, the Sustainability Commission Green Building/Solar Subcommittee has provided a proposed draft ordinance which limits the proposed mandate to residential construction for staff to review and consider. The new regulation proposes that new residential buildings, and specific alterations, additions and remodels require the installation of a solar electric 49 City Council Staff Report June 23, 2016 - Page 3 Discussion of Solar Energy Ordinance Chapter 8 photovoltaic (PV) energy generation system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). These projects include: • All new residential construction; i.e., one -and -two family dwellings, multi -family dwellings (three stories or less), and high-rise residential dwellings. • Any addition to an existing residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet • All residential remodels, alterations or repairs that are made involving demolition, remodel or repair of more than 50% of the structure or that have a permit valuation of $200,000 or more. If any of the above criteria are met then at the time of submittal of a building permit application an applicant would be required to submit plans and specifications for a solar photovoltaic system to be included with application. As an alternative for new one -and -two family dwellings and significant single-family additions and alterations, the builder / homeowner could install a solar system or other renewable energy system that will offset 75% - 100% of anticipated energy usage, or design single-family home or duplex to reduce annual energy usage below the allowed energy budget established by the California Energy Code by same amount of kilowatt hours as would be produced by solar system of 2.0 watts per square foot. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Staff finds that discussion of implementing requirements for solar installations is not a .project" under the California Environmental Quality Act, because the adoption of the ordinance does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4). Therefore no negative environmental impact is noted. r• City Council Staff Report June 23, 2016 - Page 4 Discussion of Solar Energy Ordinance Chapter 8 SUBMITTED: i•&W Mhele Mid'ian, LEED GA Manager, Office of Sustainability i David H. Ready, Es . City Manager Attachments: Marcus Fuller, PE, PLS. Assistant City Manager 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Sustainability Commission Green Building / Solar Subcommittee Recommendations for Joint Study Session with City Council June 23, 2016 51 06-23-2016 ATTACHMENT DRAFT SOLAR ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPDATING CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. City Attorneys Summary This Ordinance amends Chapter 8.04 of the City's Municipal Code to require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system in all new residential construction. It also requires the installation of a PV system in the case of significant additions, remodels, alterations or renovations to existing single-family residential buildings. add: The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains: SECTION 1. Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended to 8.04.071. Solar Requirements. The California Green Building Standards Code adopted herein by reference is hereby modified by the following additions: 4.201.2 Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations. 1. All new one -and -two family dwellings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation of the PV system shall be implemented using one of the following methods: (a) Install a solar PV system with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the dwelling (2.0 wafts per square foot); or (b) Install a solar PV system or other renewable energy system that will offset 75-100% of the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy budget; or (c) Demonstrate that the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy budget is reduced by the same wattage required by Va). 2. The requirements set out in subdivision 1 of this Section shall also apply in the following cases: (a) Any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet; or (b) All single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that 503 are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more thar 50% of the structure or that have a permit valuation of $200,000 or more. 3. At the time of submittal of a building permit application for a project meeting the thresholds set out in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this Section, an applicant shall be required to submit plans and specifications for a solar photovoltaic system included in the submittal application. 4.201.3. Low -Rise Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations. All new Low -Rise Residential dwellinas are reauired to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation of the PV system shall be implemented by installing a solar PV system with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the building footprint (2.0 watts per square foot). The provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 4.201 shall also apply. 5.201.2 High -Rise Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installation. All new high-rise residential buildings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation of the PV system shall be implemented by installing a solar PV system with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the building footprint (2.0 watts per square foot). The provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 4.201 shall also apply. 8.04.072. Appeals. A person aggrieved by an action taken by the city may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsection and clauses shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. 54 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL THIS DAY OF , 2016. ROBERT MOON, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true, and correct copy, and introduced by the City Council at a regular meeting held _, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on this _, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California 55 0 Sustainability Commission Green Building / Solar Subcommittee Recommendations for Joint Study Session with City Council June 23, 2016 I. Introduction The Sustainability Commission Green Building / Solar Subcommittee, together with Planning Commission liaison Lisa Middleton, has met several times over the past few months to consider recommendations to the full Commission and City Council on ways to establish the City as a leader in energy efficient and environmentally sustainable development and planning practices, in line with the objectives set out in the General Plan adopted in 2007, the 2013 Climate Action Plan and the new Sustainability Plan. The Subcommittee has also received input from Sustainability Manager Michele Mician, Building Director Jim Zicaro, Assistant City Manager / City Engineer Marcus Fuller, and Mayor Robert Moon and Councilmember Geoff Kors, the members of the City Council's Sustainability Subcommittee. The 2007 General Plan establishes ambitious objectives for green building and planning practices. In particular, the General Plan sets out as policy goals requiring the use of energy -efficient and green building practices and requiring the use of green building techniques in the design and construction of public buildings and facilities (Goal CD29, page 9-62). The 2013 Climate Action Plan also suggests that we advance the voluntary green building program to a mandatory green building requirement for residential buildings, with technical support services (pages 25 - 26). The Sustainability Plan calls on the City to develop strategies to reduce community -wide contributions to greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 by 2050, encourage the building or retrofitting of one million square feet of green buildings, reduce the total energy use by all buildings built before 2012 by 10%, reduce energy use and carbon use from new homes and buildings, and supply 50% of all energy from renewable sources by 2030 (pages 18, 33 and 50 - 51). As noted in the Climate Action Plan, "building it right the first time" makes sense from all kinds of standpoints. A 2013 study of the cost-effectiveness of rooftop solar systems prepared in 2013 for the California Energy Commission confirmed that installing solar electric systems on new residential and non-residential buildings in the Palm Springs climate zone will be cost-efficient in 2017 and 2020. Indeed, the estimated return on investment for a solar installation new construction over a 20-year period is five times the cost of the initial installation. It. Solar Recommendations Other California cities have considered the advantages of solar installations and have adopted ordinances requiring them in new construction. Lancaster and Sebastopol adopted mandatory solar ordinances in 2013, and San Francisco and Santa Monica have just done so. The Sebastopol ordinance also requires solar to be installed in the event of large additions, remodels, alterations or repairs to an existing building. With its constant sunshine and deep local pool of solar installers, it is time for Palm Springs to lead the way in the Coachella Valley on this issue. The Green Building / Solar Subcommittee thus recommends that the City require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). This requirement would be applicable to all new residential construction; i.e., one -and -two family dwellings, multi -family dwellings (three stories or less), and high-rise residential dwellings. The installation of a solar electric photovoltaic system should also be required for any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, and all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure or that have a permit valuation of $200,000 or more. The Subcommittee also recommends requiring solar installation on commercial building and will work with City staff to develop appropriate recommendations. As an alternative for new one -and -two family dwellings and significant single- family additions and alterations, the builder / homeowner could install a solar system or other renewable energy system that will offset 75% - 100% of anticipated energy usage, or design single-family home or duplex to reduce annual energy usage below the allowed energy budget established by the California Energy Code by same amount of kilowatt hours as would be produced by solar system of 2.0 watts per square foot. III. Green Building Recommendations In September 2012, Palm Springs adopted the CVAG Green for Life Green Building Program on a voluntary basis to increase building efficiency 15% over current state requirements. The Program is in essence a LEED program that CVAG has adapted to reflect the specific climate of the Coachella Valley. The Palm Springs City Council recently decided to require the downtown redevelopment project follow the "Green Tree" level of standards, and the Planning Commission has done the same for the proposed Serena Park development on the site of the former Palm Springs Country Club. 2 57 The Green Building Program Manual is an excellent resource for residents, homeowners, building owners, designers, architects, contractors, developers and building officials determine how they can design their building or remodeling plans to include green building techniques and products. The City should require its use (at the "Green Leaf' level) for significant single-family residential additions, alterations remodels or renovations. As set out in the Sustainability Plan (page 50), the City should also partner with CVAG to increase educational and outreach efforts to the construction industry and local developers to participate in the Green Building Program, with additional training as necessary for relevant City staff so that they are familiar with the program and can provide counter assistance on what measures are available to increase building efficiency. In addition to the above compliance with the Green Building Program, certain energy and water efficiency measures should be made mandatory for significant single-family additions, remodels, alterations or renovations. The Building Department has proposed a list of measures in consultation with the Green Building / Solar Subcommittee, as identified in the accompanying Staff Report. IV. Procedural Recommendations Taking account of feedback on the above recommendations from the full Sustainability Commission and City Council at our joint study gesginn on dune 23. the Green Building / Solar Subcommittee will work over the summer with relevant City staff to refine the proposals and review draft green building and solar ordinances and accompanying findings resolutions. The Subcommittee will also liaise as appropriate with the Planning Commission, Study sessions with stakeholders should be scheduled for the fall, prior to submitting draft texts to the full Sustainability and Planning Commissions and City Council for their consideration. The green building standards described above should take effect on January 1, 2017, simultaneously with the effectiveness of the 2016 Building Codes. Final adoption of the solar ordinance would most likely be in late 2016, following the required approval by the California Energy Commission. Respectfully submitted, Sustainability Commission Green Building / Solar Subcommittee David Freedman Nate Otto Lisa Middleton, Planning Commission liaison 3 �OF P p M SA c U to FORN� CITY OF PALM SPRINGS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 323-8204 EXCERPTS OF MINUTES The City Council held an adjourned regular meeting and joint study session with the Sustainability Commission on June 23, 2016, the City Council took the following action: PRESENT: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Kors, Councilmember Roberts, Mayor Pro Tern Mills, and Mayor Moon. ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ready, City Attorney Holland, City Clerk Thompson. PRESENT: Commissioner Armstrong, Commissioner Bettinger, Commissioner Ferguson, Commissioner Freedman, Commissioner McCann, Commissioner Otto, Vice Chair Wilson, Chair Jackson. ABSENT: Commissioner Lazar. 1. JOINT MEETING WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: 1.C. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING MANDATORY SOLAR INSTALLATION POLICY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION: Michele Mician, Sustainability Manager, provided background information as outlined in the Staff Report dated June 23, 2016. The City Council discussed and/or commented on the following: coordination with the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, the dollar amount of renovation that would require solar installation, providing incentives to builders to comply with any proposed requirements, projects that were required to be pre -wired for solar, the builder costs to add solar to a project, and the effects of mandatory solar to lower cost, start-up and affordable housing. The Sustainability Commission discussed and/or commented on the following: comparison to other City ordinances, and the process of the Sustainability Commission Subcommittee. No action taken. 59 City Council June 23, 2016 Page 2 Excerpts of Minutes I, KATHLEEN D. HART, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that the above action took place at the City Council adjourned regular meeting and study session with the Sustainability Commission held on the 23rd day of June, 2016. Kathleen D. Hart, MMC Chief Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENT #4 e t. o fNai SUSTAINABILITY PRESENTED FOR COMMISSION MEETING DATE: 12/20/16 SUBCOMMITTEE NAME: Green Building / Solar (with Planning Commission liaison) SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED BY: David Freedman SUBMITTED DATE: 12/15/16 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES: 11/21,12/5,12/12,12/25/16 NEXT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 01/12/17 Subcommittee Meeting Goals: • Meet with Staff to prepare for study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar mandate (meetings of 11/21, 12/5 and 12/12/16). • Meet with Staff to follow up an study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar mandate and prepare for full Commission meeting (meeting of 12/15/16). Summary: Subcommittee members met with Staff to prepare for and follow up on the study session with the Planning Commission on a proposed solar mandate that took place on December 14, 2016. The study session included a presentation of the Subcommittee's research and proposals by Planning Commissioner Middleton and Commissioner Freedman, testimony from invited stakeholders representing a broad range of views on the topic, public comment, and comments from the Planning Commissioners and the Director of Planning Services. Based on the input received, the Subcommittee's recommendations for a proposed solar ordinance are set out below. The Planning Commission will consider the recommendations at its meeting of January 11, 2017. Recommendation/Reauest • Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). • Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings. • Also applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that Increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, and to all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. • At the time of submittal of a building permit application for any residential dwelling or retrofit project meeting the thresholds, an applicant must submit plans and an application for the cL, mandatory solar photovoltaic system. • Retrofit requirements maybe waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where production of electric energy from solar panels Is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas. • Retrofit requirements for additions not applicable where the addition is an accessory second unit (e.g., casita). • New construction requirements not applicable to affordable housing (as defined in state and federal standards) if the additional cost is not fully funded without recourse to the residents, unless solar Installation is already mandated by state or federal law. • For market -rate new construction of less than 1,500 square feet for single-family residences and less than 1,250 square feet for multifamily residences, the solar requirement may be satisfied by meeting the requirements to achieve "Green Leaf' status under CVAG's Green Building Program checklist. ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY Recommend proposed solar ordinance to City Council for adoption. Assist Department of Planning Services as needed in Its preparation for discussion of proposed solar ordinance at its meeting of January 11, 2017. If recommendations are approved by Planning and Sustainability Commissions, work with relevant Staff members and City Attorney to prepare an ordinance, findings resolution and Staff Report for consideration by City Council. POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT/REQUEST IF ANY: Adoption of a local amendment to the energy efficiency requirements in the Green Building Standards Code will require approval by the California Energy Commission JCEC). A cost effectiveness study must be submitted to the CEC as part of the approval process. The cost of that study is not determinable at this time. ATTACHMENT #5 Your Sastafnabte City_) December 14, 2016 Planning and Sustainability Commissions City of Palm Springs STUDI(S ES$I 0 N: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR $TRATEGY PALM SPRINSaS GREENHOUSE GAS (qHG) REDUCTION GOALS 2007 General Plan sets out as policy goals requiring the use of energy -efficient and green building practices and requiring the use of green building techniques in the design and construction of public buildings and facilities. 2013 Climate Action Plan suggests that we advance the voluntary green building program to a mandatory green building requirement for residential buildings, with technical support services. 2016 Sustainability Plan calls on the City to develop strategies to reduce community -wide contributions to greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 by 2050, encourage the building or retrofitting of one million square feet of green buildings, reduce the total energy use by all buildings built before 2012 by 10%, reduce energy use and carbon use from new homes and buildings, and supply 50% of all energy from renewable sources by 2030. � I 6WA-1014 A #1 -4, ki I - I FMA - -1 &M NMI A New construction creates additional GHG emissions and accelerates climate change. Once emitted, these gases can remain in our atmosphere for hundreds of years. In Palm Springs, our last GHG audit (2010) revealed that 70% of our emissions come from the gas and electricity used to heat, light and cool our buildings. Increases supply of renewable energy to a Community Choice Aggregation program now being studied by Riverside County. New technology with solar -generating roof shingles expected to be available next year. Provides head start to Palm Springs architects and developers in planning for Zero Net Energy building standards expected starting in 2020. Reinforces Palm Springs branding as a Sustainable City that meets its stated goals. Good Starting point for considering broader renewable energy needs. JURISDICTIONS WITH MANDATORY 5_Q LAR -ORDINANCES: JURISDICTIONS WITH MANDATORY SOLAR ORDINANCES" Jwlsdldlon lament Enacted Nr Effect Munkipal Code 10rdlnanc[ Cmt Eff"tiveness Study Culver City 1 kW solar per wan 10,000 sq ft In MF and Commertial new construction or rannovatiom over 10,OW sq it Mar-M Spring 2008 htto ; h1h1AOt.ttO.lL!!dvmlLSUttlfLwl7YAu!h:wmd�e Ktumo iltm ; /www slkaKmy ael httn i.'www,[n�r[v ca. m,hiNa2 leek [=byafKattSiumolrMi vnaflrstSkmrnolink slls Ltkk, .2ts,umpli.k W-liticulmh Wntent-tvw.homat lets rb.rL bookmerldiumchnir- m IOtolio-d[stination nm" %2715 02AQW11i,271SIumallik rmMarmig- drlD 15.021000 Noma/5how(ZgSy,.y _ d/2005stHnda rdilorJ•nonsf 20 MQ 07-046-24 CULVEP C"V' PVF Lancaster 1 to 1 S kW on lots over 7,0W sq ft- 1.5• kW on lots over 100,000 sf fC Builders On "Vegate requiramertts of a subdivision and dvlde among sorraofthe unhs. guilders can meat the requ,mment through the purchase of aEC%. Mar-13 NM-13 fittm :Ivrww mun:coda.mmlktrn n/n/lanvsterltMlf7kS4A htw,, www enarn vi, g2y h=1Lrn wv .9ntrgY ©.awh013 eybl:caticnt/CEC400-2013- f9iI2013Aandardt,'oLQ of ordinancastnodald*TTISOVCO CHL528EKO 1S.210 nancaalyncastatjmntartef Submitul to CatAorngA 20iMSOEN5y 94SiS1: 4QQ 2013-WS-O,ndf OgrN C1+,tnmrs,ion.vdf Sebastopol 2 wam per sq it of Insulated bu,lding space, or 75% offset of electric k>ad. Ifwlaro infeasible, otheraherrative energy sourut can be used, or builders on paya fee. Mey-13 lu1-13 bRo.:'www.<Srdanydnhin[son+.!CA r�etMsrnooUarr5lhastoo Ptto:lwvrw.ou b'KCa9.COm ' S_KC`SLV4!L'adt%2413N51a Benda nem nym�er pl. n of st t 5 .h 1 San Franc Solar PV or solar thermal covering 15% of roof area on new buildings 10 swries or lass. I n W llin g s living roaf is an altemative option Apf`36 Jan17 Alta.: /Lbnrv.a mIom].c=,niV[atawerd`f tmtu ates6G,= ,h tmgn rd-•rn!en! sa nfrana cc> JR�lT�7VNfi.'Wd na ncesl6lo0071. aj& Santa Mwiv 15 watts per N ft of total residential buildin g. 2 watts persgftof building footprint for MF L Commercial. Apr16 Map16 httm.::www.smaw net/Pepertmants/P _.r!u=t oriaL!Grae N http"lwrnv scads us/coda v/Prrbl!d�ocumeniyfjS,�- 4]lSN247T23 20160119T 163e1 n• 4 Ron rakutvcfii CorPma.rts Sa nta Memo Cost Effedhisr, s Ara Fls,s,OM San Matan Naw SF-atiaast a 1 kW MF 3.16 units - at least a 2 kW MF 17s units - at least It 3 kW system Non•lesldemlal c10,000aq ft-at least a3kW Non-rasklarttlal 30,000. sq ft-at least a5kW M2Y-16 Jan-17 oho�tmrr-23-2a 2l- ��s/cedes!renmatan/view '7hf5spreadsheet was pmpamd by Rachel A. Diimnco. SwtalnobI1tV Coordhloror Qfy of Fremonf wd b w",t os of Ail. 25, 2016 CIRRENT AND PL,SINNED SOLARov DEVELOPMENTS IN PALM SPRINGS x Alta Verde (Andreas Hills Neighborhood) x Tuscany Heights (Little Tuscany Neighborhood) x Serena Park (former site of Palm Springs Country Club, 350 new single and multifamily homes) x Miralon (San Rafael Neighborhood, 1,150 new single and multifamily homes) x Sunia Investments (Racquet Club West Neighborhood, 24 new condominium units in 6 buildings) PROPOSED SOLAR ORDINANCE KEY PROVISIQNS Requires the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings. Also applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, and all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. At the time of submittal of a building permit application for any residential dwelling or retrofit project meeting the thresholds, an applicant must submit plans and an application for the mandatory solar photovoltaic system. Retrofit requirements may be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible un-shaded areas. 9 COST/W NGS ANALYSIS For a 4 kW system (based on 2,000 square foot house), estimated additional cost to homeowner net of 30% federal tax credit is $9,660 for new construction and $10,500 for a retrofit. Monthly additional cost of $49 (assuming 4.25% 30-year fixed mortgage interest rate) for new construction and $91 for a retrofit (assuming 8.5% 20-year PACE financing). Estimated monthly energy cost offset of $137 in based on system generating 6,000 kWh annually and SCE default tariff for solar customers under Net Energy Metering Successor Tariff (NEM-ST) effective July 1, 2017. Estimated monthly savings of $88 for new construction and $46 for a retrof it. Connections under NEM-ST grandfathered for 20 years. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS 30% Solar Investment Tax Credit through the end of 2019, then 26% in 2020 and 22% in 2021. New Solar Housing Program, incentive currently $0.35/watt for market -rate housing projects. Single -Family Affordable Solar Housing rebate of $3/watt for affordable housing projects. Property -assessed clean energy (PACE) loans. PACE financing is also available for energy efficiency and water conservation projects (such as desert landscaping and artificial turf), and the projects can be grouped together. Under certain conditions, both interest and principal payments may be deductible. A recent appraisal study of homes in the San Diego area confirmed recapture of the cost of installing a solar PV system upon resale. 0 FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR STUDY SESSION Should city officials take a more active lead in the pursuit of solar energy? (Desert Sun, 7/18/75) Should multifamily homes be included in the solar mandate for new construction? Is 2.0 watts per square foot the right standard? Should solar be required for major retrofits? Are the retrofit thresholds appropriate? NO) J� lam • A! EM A Green Building/ Solar Subcommittee to review feedback from this study session and make recommendation to full Planning and Sustainability Commissions. Planning and Sustainability Commissions to vote on recommendation to City Council. If adopted by Council on first reading, ordinance would need to be submitted to California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval, along with supporting analysis on how City of Palm Springs has determined that the proposed local standard will save more energy than the current provisions in the California Energy Code and its determination that the local standards are cost-effective. Adoption on second reading would follow CEC approval. Objective is for ordinance to be in effect on or about July 1, 2017. Presentations + Q & A from Commissioners by: Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) (Katie Barrows / Benjamin Druyon) Ygrene (Victor Hunt) Southern California Edison (Erin Pulgar) Climate Action PS (Ellen Lockhert) Desert Valleys Builders Association (Gretchen Gutierrez / James Brownyard) GRID Alternatives (Bambi Tran) Perkins Coie (Christopher Parker) Public Comments Commissioner Comments & Staff Directions Sustainabili Session Commission December 14, 2016 • Model Green Building Standards ... tailored to the region • Cost effective ways to Build Green in our Climate Zone • Energy saving tools for residents & contractors • Training for staff, boards, commissions, contractors tnricning Desert Communities A 0 V r yM J U _rii {{ T1 •+b.3 ►� M Why Build Green? r I AIN Introducing Our New Green Building Web App You c an Save Erg by Planning Grnn Green Building App Yw can Save Big by Punning Green M��Flv.G RvuwO���Ylw1� p CVAG Recognizing Progress greenf rLfecv org /Green ' I'his .Come Earned New studies show that Green Homes are worth more and sell faster. CO .,� Firs �i CVAG 411 ancing Green Energy: PACE CITY 4 of PPOJECM TOTAI, FUNDgDI PM))e 20 499,557,11 6athedral City 347 $ 71949�415.49 Coachella 131 2,523,643.61 Desert Hot Springs 186 $ 3,829,999.82 Indian Wells I 40 $ 1,691,169M] Indio 266 51 5,155,125.95 l La Quinta _� 180 ;,215,439.21 Palm Desert 293 6,994,028.79 Palm S,pyr►,gs 264 $ 7,260,06;J3 Rancho Mirage 104 $ 3,299,941.56 0 Of PRWELR TPT4 FUNDEp 15 315i000 Qp lip 7 00.00 63 469,➢PVo9 1� 367.0M00 221 1 Q.OQQ.OQ 121 Z 0,000.00 186 $ 41190 ocytfq 144 $ 3,790,000.00 48 $ 1,730,000.00 �yrmuQ;l Dupes 27 695,599.33 cca 11 186t469.73 �ThQm-ol J 7 177,410.49 54 ' Thousand Palms 33 $ 501,305,06 1909 $43,369,266.691 1095 $ 1,204,776.00 23,886,776.00 *JOBS CREATED: I "CARS OFF ROAD FOR A YEAR: fill 24020 ' calc"14 ated us" a Wei created by the ACEEP. " emulated "n9 a lkA created by the E08 and with the help of HERO's In-h" g tnare. mow - Green for _ Thank You! 1>�* CVAG gret"f rif6G" 0 �� 11 Questions? C-, w !J t- W z Z Q O _ 0� u> J w UJ } ry O �O zW �U) zo f1' 0o a m z ZD 4r Z ^, C 00 i L r m CD m C= w O a 4-1 Q) a, U N O C: iL w U C .'-' }. O Q —J T} z o Oly O O O U >, a O N O >, O C7 -j L- 0- U) C O N Q � O 0 Q C C C1 O m O C Q�- 70 "_- Q O U U J am o (D - W 0 M 0 0 u L LJ C Q) N Q O N N E u,J 0 m U) W Q rr v ca r 1 E (f } o c a — � a W a CID 00 L O m cz 0 m 4— a - cm O .0 O Q m N 4-1 O U ate-+ j m _0 w Z) U y0 O C� 5 J -0 fl _0 > 1 (6 z O) co 4 Q 0 70 U ca fl — O7 N O O E o O U >, E O . +-' c O N O � } N N o N � Q � O •�, U � � C�6 CZ O L� 0 +j (D Q ca c .c L +' O a U L -D W cn m cn U > v U) � � W .� p p Q c O cu W ❑ o- v) 11_ ❑ Q ly C UQ v is ro Ofw y Of b' 0 (/ U n w E cn �. L co co C C� o CD U? %U o Q .V > O r O >, L1J V) j ) � ca co O LLJ aW Q. E E 4) N U co C Ln LL LL O :2 2 f-- Ln • • e o a o 0 L -O U -Q � N � 0)-- a.). ono o N (6 > 0 O r- CD C6 O X— H m � W cn N � O > L- 0 -U = 07 c a) O W S 0)W u7 Q m U U O N M��I 'fit C '— Eco E T LL LL Q co m Qb A G O O O Q ms m r O U LO LO m 2� cn L � cn (n N N cv O >> - U �o C LO L Q .V (� > O T• O O E CD N >, W cn >, LO 0) 0 W L� Q) L- E (D — _ '— C6 mO X O �i iLO2i:�iIf'z L cz a) a) �t? F- Q _0 U -0 > N C m C la)0) C6 O O .V j p O O Cti CD � _J O -1 O N � O O � +-. H .. a CD W S L� 4-- O O O O O E cn +_ CCT C6 O X E U p a e a o a o p x � L X a T) (D a _0 o �- o O � O V\ coL O Q �- — > O O 0 O >% C6 a) >rn 1 w > V / L a) ^^U,,LO W 0 tf— � � C C.r Q) +m C O m MCT O F— U a� O 1,1,J W �— C m C U U CO (Q m X E -- L C C +, C — Ca O — O (� Ln ��-L1-O���ZU m cn a e o o e a a o L Q) a� W Q) Q) Lo +-+ Q) _0 U - N C a) Q o N o O •U o Q) a- 0)W tt cC � a) m O" C O O O O o w LL -� U a E Q a) a� D � O m (C3 a) — x E U Q) Q) a �_ C i X iL �L 0:-52 U � m Qa a o 0 a 0 o 0 C i jug) X W (Q N X co O F— c� U) Q) cn F— Q) Q) — — >, _ O >1 > _0 U C: O C6 0CD 0 CD.O 'm 0, U-) L p Q (D CL V > CO 0 0 O L D i m T— N Q) L O W (a 0 Q) O M r" C: J � (� O W � LL•_ N Q) (DQ Z3 LO 0 0 Rai E E � Q) cn X — Q) cn � E Lz o:E:z U a� O O o O O O O ! O a cn L � � (D W (n cn a) a) -►� > Q) U Ecz N O Q) (� Q Q LO O O O J Z co r-- 0) r J � CIO -Cc: > L p 0 0 -t O () > cts 0O W L.L 0 u W O ( O O Q) E40- 0 p Q) C? E E CU M (D - x E CO) X s- C L Qb 0 0 0 O 0 f 0 O O U Certified Properties contractor - benef;gY upgrades from 1', 6 0 , companies 9 0 clean ever YgreneWorks 241 Participating $482M �� PACE financing cities/counties contracts completed CIO 1.-A Blythe 74 70 4 50 47 3 22 20 2 $65,142 $453,124 $518,266 Cathedral City 930 928 2 648 646 2 360 359 1 $38,712 $6,820,379 $6,859,091 Coachella 220 218 2 184 184 0 129 129 0 $0 $2,160,395 $2,160,395 Desert Hot Springs 478 471 7 326 320 6 186 182 4 $402,738 $3,110,192 $3,512,930 Indian Wells 68 68 0 57 57 0 41 41 0 $0 $1,597,614 $1,597,614 ndio 508 498 10 406 399 7 282 279 3 $140,977 $4,676,836 $4,817,813 La Quinta 342 341 1 284 284 0 180 180 0 $0 $2,875,896 $2,875,896 Palm Desert 643 631 12 502 495 7 298 294 4 $310,950 $6,507,961 $6,818,911 Palm Springs 595 574 21 456 440 16 270 262 8 $330,025 $6,560,999 $6,891,024 Rancho Mirage 209 206 3 166 165 1 104 104 0 $0 $3,197,061 $3,197,061 Unincorporated County 158 149 9 ill 109 2 79 79 0 $0 $1,498,285 $1.498,286 Total 4225 4154 71 3190 3146 44 1951 1929 22 $1,288,544 $39,458,742 $40,747,286 'Inception to September 30, 2016, co N +71235 NEW JOBS + 30.2 & SUSTAINED CREATED MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR `"= t.i�i.*1►!°'� INSTALLED�,�. ,�Z. Roe + $1.2B IECONOMIC j STIMULUS d + CO2 579K REDUCTION IETRIC TONS +2g GALLONS OF WATER SAVED +SAVES I ENERGY c' ,uAL .' U PROVIDING it 1 YEAR OF POWER TO 476K HOMES Ygrene proprietary model based on data sourced primarily from ECONorthwest Economic Impact Analysis of PACE Programs. Represents total do ar amount (rounded to the nearest S100K) of PACE contracts completed by Ygrene as of 10/31/16. m Overview of Net Energy Metering (NEM) Successor Tariff (NEM 2.0) Erin Pulgar, Senior Project Manager State Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison 12l1^/201G YIU 111 W rmmmm4 EDISON' co Cn NEM is an optional rate schedule for customers who elect to install eligible renewable generating facilities to supply their onsite energy needs How NEM Works ❑1 NO DATA SCE meter does not record PV veneration directly supplied to customer and used onsite ..Nguema.. Every month, SCE bills NEM customer for net energy use: the difference between Energy In (Channel 1) and Energy Out (Channel 2). 12/14/2016 ENERGY IN (CHANNEL 1) SCF meter records the energysupplied to the hez id �F—► ENERGY OUT (CHANNEL 2) SCE meter records the energy produced by the customer that is not used onsite. but is exoorted to the grid Any monthly net energy credits (kWh) receive retail credit (in $) based on a customer's electric rate schedule and can offset SCE energy charges (in $) throughout a 12-month Relevant Period. ILLUSTRATIVE Any excess energy (in kWh) at the end of the Relevant Period receives Net Surplus Compensation (—$0.025 / kWh). VNIIIII PI f_UII(1%U EDISON' 4NW1\!\1Tl\1I1f1\ tf �i.ea�. Customers with TOU and NEM net their ENERGY IN with their ENERGY OUT within the same TOU bucket How TOU and NEM work TOU-D-A Pricing and Time Periods A'nrMy PnM.:+a C.neit Ipt oar prtakm �L'lr Daiy Baw Cvr9a 3r M'r.[nun Wily CimV 33r TOU-D-A Pricing and Time Periods M*mW 8arakna C,*dv 10c tax 6..b iWh 0AJy Bauc Armpa:3t M nrrvrn DJy Chou. 33t Xa rRawc Prke AML: liw wr Rowe Priea/YWk .lone rhnvpn Seolembar s,non7u Suerr 01LValk Jura _n�agh SV�!a .bw.4' Th. 1 ■ Suoar0l PoaC WNw Rate 04Paat Whwr Raw: a o'1 Pear Ocizw craugri Msy, a nfN;;!v ■ on peµ anal Ocaaa^ huy, a mara9t 0 On Pmk Customers "net" their energy use within each TOU bucket. TOU buckets with net generation receive credit associated with the retail price of that TOU bucket; TOU buckets with net consumption are charged for energy at the retail price of that TOU bucket. 12/14/2016 Charges and credits for all TOU buckets are combined and the customer is billed or _ credited ($) for the month at retail rates based on a customer's electric rate schedule. Net energy credits ($) can offset SCE charges ($) throughout a 12-month Relevant Period. Example 1.On-peak exported generation for the month is 300 kWh. On -peak consumption from the grid for the month is 200 kWh. 2.On-peak net generation is 100 kWh; therefore, custurners get 100 kWh of on -peak energy credit MI 3. Customers can apply this energy credit ($) to off-peak and super off-peak energy consumption. Any excess enerev- (in kWh) at the end of the Relevant Period receives Net Surplus Compensation ("$0.02S / kWh). ®%M10" ruutuw EDISON' �. nrurn rrmunn. a r...r... NEM 2.0 Tariff Summary Overall Structure • Continues basic NEM structure of netting kWh imports and exports over a 12-month Relevant Period, with monthly energy charges and credits based on the rates in a customer's underlying retail rate schedule Effective Date • NEM 2.0 projected to become effective in SCE's service territory on July 1, 2017 (unless we hit our NEM 1.0 cap earlier) • Allowed to stay on NEM 2.0 tariff for 20 years from the date of interconnection (underlying retail rote schedule is not grandfathered) Nonbypassable • NBCs include the Public Purpose Program Charge, Nuclear Decommissioning Charge, Competition Charges (NBCs) Transition Charge and DWR Bond Charge (currently at $0,0261) • NBCs are assessed on the net of imports and exports in each metered interval Mandatory TOU • All NEM 2.0 customers must be on a TOU retail rate schedule (residential default is currently TOU-D-A) Sizing • Removes 1 MW sizing limit but generating facilities must still be sized to load Interconnection Costs • 51 MW: $75 interconnection fee (SASH exemption) but retains exemptions from study costs, distribution upgrade costs, standby charges and departing load charges >1 MW: must pay all interconnection costs but retains exemption from standby and departing load charges Virtual NEM Options • Retains MASH-VNM (income -qualified multifamily), NEM-V (multi -meter, multi -tenant) and NEM-A (multi - meter) DA/CCA Customers • Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers are eligible provided their Electric Service Provider (ESP) or Community Choice Aggregator also offers a comparable NEM 2.0 tariff DAC Option • Defers adoption of alternatives for Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) to Phase 2 of the proceeding (currently ongoing) Upcoming Changes • CPUC to review tariff structure options for customer -sited DG in 2019 ("3.0" tariff) Shifting TOU periods to better align with costs (proposed 4 to 9 p.m. on -peak period) 12/14/2016 0 SOUTHERN CAL1Ft7M& EDISON� An EDISON IM77MA77a aLa Comv®y Contact: Erin Pulgar erin_pulgar@sce.com / T: (626) 302-2509 12/1,112016 E,,,,,Climate Action PS Ourgoal.• To stop climate change Solar Ordinance Testimony Sustainability and Planning Commission Study Session 12.14.16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The science is in. Over 97% of the climate science community agrees that climate change is real and caused by burning fossil fuels. I believe that science. We can see the impacts of climate change all around us. Deepening droughts and water shortages, massive wildfires, epic storms and flooding, heat waves and sea level rise. The last five years have been the hottest on record. 2015 was the hottest year with 2016 about to surpass this record. In California alone, there are now over twice as many dead trees as people. Drought and increased temperatures resulting in insect infestation cause this unprecedented die off. This is just one face of climate change. In April the American College of Physicians issued the following call to action: "Climate change will have devastating consequences for public and individual health unless aggressive, global action is taken now to curb greenhouse gas emissions." It's time to take meaningfid action to counter this threat. The good news is that we can do something about it here in Palm Springs. We don't need to wait for Sacramento or Washington, DC. We can create common sense policies that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions and inspire other cities worldwide. www.climateaclionps.com P.O. Box 5086, Palm Springs, CA 92263 1C0 Our first priority must be to prevent new sources of GHG. As you know, the last GHG audit in 2010 identified that 70% of our GHG emissions in Palm Springs come from our buildings. Every time we add a new building, we add GHG to the environment and accelerate climate change. It's as simple as that. So, we support an ordinance that will require installed solar on all new construction and major remodels. Similar policies have already been enacted in Santa Monica, San Francisco, Lancaster, Sebastopol, Culver City and San Mateo. There are very real benefits to taking this first step to establish Palm Springs as a leader in sustainabitity. When we enact the proposed solar ordinance, we support our local solar businesses. We help create more local jobs for our citizens. We diversify our seasonal economy and we enhance our brand, attracting the next veneration of tourist who care about sustainability. Most importantly, we create a viable future for our children and grandchildren. When we pass the proposed solar ordinance, we also keep our promises to our residents. Our Sustainability Plan calls for cutting GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That's just 4 years from now. We need to get started if we are to meet those goals. Thank you to members of Planning and Sustainability Commissions for their impressive actions to move this ordinance forward. Let's get it passed and get on with the good work of creating a thriving renewable energy economy and real energy independence. We have no time to waste. Ellen Lockert Founder Climate Action PS www.climateactionps.com https://www.faccbook.com/climateactionps/ 206.650.6476 www.climateactionps.com P.O. Box 5086, Palm Springs, CA 92263 1Qi 7 I'll 1w • rD —M CL ovq r+ Q0 0 Ln (D > Qj < C7 rD < (D m Lnp r) t�rr cra ° t/U1 CL GRID ALTERNATIVES tr 1 Our Vision NW I - a� .-"04� CPO a ter. • � F y n e Y ' Nation's Largest Solar Non -Profit • 13 Regional Offices Across the US (CA, CO, NY/Tri-State, DC/Mid- Atlantic) • Total of 27 megawatts of solar installed Provides Solar Solutions for Underserved Communities • Over 7,500 solar projects installed for low-income residents throughout the country Workforce Development and Volunteerism Model • Over 28,000 individuals have been provided with hands-on training Economic and Environmental Benefits • Generate over $211 million worth of clean, renewable power • Eliminate over S87,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions GRID r ALTERNATIVES Type of Service GRID's Solar Services Single- Multifamily Non - family (Low-income homeowners) (Affordable multifamily housing owners) residential (Mission -aligned nonprofits) Homeowner Benefits: • 50-90% savings on electric bills the-ough solar installed on home • Referral to LIEE and CARE • Warranty: 10 yr labor; 10-25 yr equipment manufacturer Local Worker Benefits: • FREE Solar Job Training: • No experience needed • Hands-on with all equipment, materials, and lunch provided • Ages 16+ (18+ to be on roof) • Job placement support I. Own and live in home 2. Income qualified: <_ 80% limits 3. Solar appropriate roof 4. Qualify for available low- income program rebates/ funding ($3/w-AC rebate available via SASH) * No credit check, high bills, or equity req'd * No liens placed on home 1 $37,550 2 $421900 3 $487250 4 $53,600 5 $57,900 6 $62,200 7 $667500 8 $707800 (2016 San Bernardino County & Riverside County Income Guidelines) Rd ttt z z 2 m w o m � T p m Palm Spr"s Palm Springs Convention Center r, r Way v> T. En cn C 7 Map web link: https://www.huduser.gov/portal /sadda/sadda gct.html Also potentially eligible are single-family homes that meet PUC 2852 definition of affordable housing. 4- v,r'l INS, f+ RID Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) — RNATivEs Full Project Funding via State Cap & Trade AM 'rrlts�de 1 ,8eaumc 3 ey Porrk At"N Ramona l� COTTONw000 M F. arris... Re f iem et ��_5688 R 4620 ft Sun City X Pk� s.. Lake Com�rngotti` ��✓. Lai l• Ismore MECCA HILLS �, A Map web link: http://oehha.maps.arcgis. com/apps/Viewer/index.h tml?appid=dae2fb1e4267 4c12a04a2b302a080598 GRID Low -Income Homeowner Costs 1 ALTERNATIVES Full Project Funding via State Cap & Trade SOLAR HER4,1YGRENEJ GRID COMPANY PACE I ALTERNATIVES 1�75110• Required Required Not Required • 15 years 15 years None 6% None • $ 21 f 303 $ 24,303 $0 J-$4,800� (-$4,800) None $16,503 $19,503 $0 9.6 years 11,3 years Immediately • $152,000 in savings for 4 low-income families • 16.3 kW -DC solar installed • $76,000 invested by GRID WT1 CAOLLEGL 1 1 t f D E E RT COACNG C VALLEY U HOUSING COALITION fhQ 9ai(di" Gmmuffnity Sifter 1981 COVN11 OF RIYE>ISIOf YESA ECONOMIC DEVHO►MENI AGENCY F.. )HSHS REAL 0 0 P 111 a n Iti I„ c s.� Rslad a �n G R I D r ALTERNATIVES kill I U 1:1 _ t. 'G at �� � F t A R RES R ,, f FdJU _ _; S U i.I POVJc R CAI. SEW CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION December 13, 2016 Planning and Sustainability Commissions Green Building / Solar Subcommittee City of Palm Springs RE: Support for residential solar requirements Dear Commission Members: CALSEIA (California Solar Energy Industries Association) is pleased to provide this letter of support for the City of Palm Springs proposed residential solar requirements. I'm sorry we were unable to attend this meetino. It is an important discussion and we wish to be of further assistance to you in the future. In general, CALSEIA is in strong support of policies that incorporate solar energy into new construction as a cost-effective way for consumers to access this environmentally friendly technology. to doing so, Palm Springs would be joining a growing list of California municipalities leading the way toward a consumer - friendly clean energy future. When incorporated during construction, solar additions can save the homeowner time and money while also helping the city meet its environmental goals. I would like you to consider two comments: 1) Consider, if not now then in the not so distant future, including the option of adding solar hot water systems as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Solar hot water systems are generally less expensive and take up less roof -space than PV. They also benefit from the federal tax credit and they reduce natural gas usage in the home. Unless these new homes are going to be 100 electric, solar water heaters are one of the most effective ways to further reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of a home Solar PV and solar thermal can co -exist on same home. 2) Consider adding some exemptions to your mandate that solar be included on all homes undergoing a retrofit that adds 25% or more of square footage. Solar is not appropriate for every home. There could be legitimate shading concerns, for example, with an existing home. You should avoid challenges to a rule that will work for 9936 of the buildings simply because of problems associated with 1%. This said, the exemptions should be narrowly defined and limited to genuine limits to adding solar to a home. Again, thank you for the opportunity to.submit these comments. We applaud your leadership and would be happy to engage with you and your staff as you proceed down this road. Sincerely, Bernadette Del Chiaro Executive Director, CALSEIA 916.228-4567 1 bernadette@calseia.org System Cost Minus 30% Federal Tax Credit Net Cost to Home Owner Mothly cost if added to mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) Monthly cost with PACE financing (10% down payment; 20 years @ 6.0%) Solar Cost Impact 4.2 kW Solar Retrofit Install $16,884 ($4.02 / watt)* 5 065 $11,819 N/A $76 4.2kW Solar New Construction Install $17,052 ($4.06 / watt)** 5 116 $11,936 $55 N/A * Based on average cost of $4.47 / watt AC reported by the California Energy Commission (CEC) DG stats database for 971 Palm Springs solar installations between 8/15 and 6/17. The solar industry sizes and prices in DC nameplate capacity, but the CEC and utilities derate the system for conversion, energy loss and potential soiling effects, reflecting actual power produced in AC current. The $ / watt cost in DC is typically 10-12% lower than $ / watt cost in AC. A 90% AC to DC conversion factor is used ($4.47 / watt AC x 0.9 = $4.02 / watt DC). ** Based on $4.06 / watt DC used in EcoMotion cost effectiveness study. The developer may be eligible for an incentive under the CEC New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP). The current incentive level is $0.50 / watt for market -rate housing ($2,100 for a 4.2 kW system). The incentive must be passed onto the end user (i.e., home buyer). The $4.06 / watt cost does not include the NSHP incentive. Monthly cost of $525,000 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) $2,394 Monthly cost of $536,936 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.S%) $2,449 Net Monthly Cost Savings (Year 11 Retrofit Install New Construction Install SCE cost offset $105 $105 Monthly interest cost ($76) ($55) Monthly savings $29 $50 ATTACHMENT #b 115 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES MEMORANDUM Date: 11 January 2017 To: Planning Commission From: Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services Subject: Proposed Residential Solar Strategy A proposed residential solar strategy has been developed by the Green Building/Solar Subcommittee of the Sustainability Commission (Freedman, Otto), with input by a liaison from the Planning Commission (Middleton). The proposal was presented at a study session of the Planning Commission on December 14, 2016, where input was received from members of the public, Planning Commissioners, and members of the Sustainability Commission. Based on the input received at the study session, a revised proposal was presented to the Sustainability Commission at their meeting of December 20, 2016. After receiving input and discussion, the Sustainability Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposal. The item has now been forwarded to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The following summary reflects the recommendation of the Sustainability Commission: • Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). • Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings. • Also applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, and to all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. • At the time of submittal of a building permit application for any residential dwelling or retrofit project meeting the thresholds, an applicant must submit plans and an application for the mandatory solar photovoltaic system. • Retrofit requirements may be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas. • Retrofit requirements for additions not applicable where the addition is an accessory second unit (e.g., casita). • Requirements not applicable to affordable housing (as defined in state law) if the additional cost is not fully funded without recourse to the residents, unless solar installation is already mandated by state or federal law. • For market -rate new construction of less than 1,500 square feet for single-family residences and less than 1,250 square feet for multifamily residences, the solar requirement may be satisfied by meeting the requirements to achieve "Green Leaf' status under CVAG's Green Building Program checklist. It is requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance and provide a recommendation to the City Council. While the Planning Commission does not normally make recommendations on amendments to the Municipal Code, the proposed ordinance will impact future development proposals, and as such, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the City Council. The following documents are provided as attachments to this memo: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Revised Solar Cost Calculation (01/05/17) 3. Subcommittee Report — Sustainability Commission (dated 12120/16) 4. Materials from the Planning Commission Study Session (12/14/16) 5. Solar Ordinance Cost -Effectiveness Study (dated 08/12/16) Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. `. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING AND RESTATING SECTION 8.04.072 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND ESTABLISHING MANDATORY SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC MEASURES. City Attorney's Summary This Ordinance amends the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 California Code of Regulations, It adds amendments within Section 8.04.072 to the Palm Springs Municipal Code mandating solar photovoltaic systems in all new market -rate residential construction and in the case of significant additions, remodels, alterations or renovations to existing single-family residential buildings. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains: SECTION 1. Article I of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended and restated to read as follows: ARTICLE I BUILDING CODES 8.04.005 Citation of Building Code. 8.04.010 California Building Code -Adopted. 8.04.015 California Building Code -Additions, Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.016 Califomia Residential Code -Adopted. 8.04.017 California Residential Code -Additions, Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.020 California Mechanical Code -Adopted. 8.04.021 California Mechanical Code -Additions, Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.030 California Plumbing Code -Adopted. 8.04.031 Califomia Plumbing Code -Additions, Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.035 International Property Maintenance Code -Adopted. 8.04.040 California Existing Building Code -Adopted. 8.04.045 California Historic Building Code -Adopted. 8.04.050 California Electrical Code -Adopted. 8.04.055 Califomia Electrical Code -Addition, Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.065 Califomia Energy Code -Adopted. 8.04.070 California Green Building Standards Code -Adopted. 8.04.072 California Green Building Standards Code -Amendments and Deletions. 8.04.080 Reserved. SECTION 2. Section 8.04.072 of the Palm Springs Municipal Cade is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 8.04.072. California Green Building Standards Code -Amendments and Deletions The California Green Building Standards Code adopted by reference pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of this Chapter is hereby modified by the following additions: 1) Add new Section 4.201.2, Solar Photovoltaic -When Required, to read as follows: 1.8 4.201.2 Residential Solar Photovoltaic - When Required 1. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 apply to: (a) all new construction of single-family residential buildings; (b) all new construction of multiple -family residential buildings classified in Residential Groups R-2 and R-3, as defined respectively in Sections 310.4 and 310.5 of the California Building Code adopted by reference pursuant to Section 8.04.010 of this Chapter; (c) any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases its square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, except where the addition is an accessory second unit; and (d) any remodel, alteration or renovation to an existing single-family residential building that is made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. 2. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to low-income residential housing as such term is defined in Section 2852(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code if the cost of installation of the solar photovoltaic system is not fully funded without recourse to the residents of such low-income residential housing, unless the installation is already mandated by applicable state or federal law or regulation. 3. At the time of submittal of a permit application for a residential building meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section, an applicant shall submit plans and an application for a solar photovoltaic system in accordance with the sizing requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.3. 2) Add new Section 4.201.3, Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations, to read as follows: 4.201.3 Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations 1. All residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.2 shall install a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum total wattage equal to two (2) watts times the total square footage of the subject building. 2. With respect to single-family residential buildings of less than 1,500 square feet habitable space and multiple -family residential buildings of less than 1,250 square feet habitable space, the requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section may be satisfied by meeting the requirements to achieve "Green Leaf' status under the Coachella Valley Association of Government's Green Building Program checklist in effect at the time of submittal of the permit application. 3. With respect to single-family residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivisions 1(c) or 1(d) of Section 4.201.2, the requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section may be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where the production of electrical energy from solar photovoltaic systems is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas. 4. (The requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section may be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where the production of electrical energy from solar photovoltaic systems is likely to exceed the expected consumption of the residence.] 110 SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State Guidelines, because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a "project," as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the State Guidelines. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law, and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs, hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section of subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the clauses or phrases being declared invalid PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL THIS DAY OF , 2017. T ROBERT MOON, MAYOR ATTEST: ], CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, [ ], City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. _ is a full, true, and correct copy, and introduced by the City Council at a regular meeting held on _ the , day of , 2017, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of , 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN. [ ], CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California System Cost GC 15% mark up Total Minus 30% federal Tax Credit Net Cost to Home Owner Mothly cost if added to mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) Monthly cost with PACE financing (10% down payment; 20 years @ 8.5%) Monthly cost of $500,000 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) Monthly cost of $509,660 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) Solar impact on Mortgage 4 kW Solar Install Retrofit $15,000 $0.00 $15,000 4 500 $10,500 N/A $82 per month $2,280.00 $2,324.00 4 kW Solar Install New Construction $12,000 ($10,000 with NSHP Rebate)* $1,800 $13,800 4 140 $9,660 $44 per month N/A * Developer may be eligible for an incentive under the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP). CEC is scheduled to consider changes to NSHP at its Business Meeting on March 8, 2017. Among the proposed changes is to increase the current incentive level of $0.35 / watt to $0.50 / watt ($2,000 for 4 kW system) for the remainder of the program. ] � * 122 TOU-D-A Pricing and Time Periods fi i Rl�1C PNnAMU J.Y noryi5w•ras .I nxr. y ._. .. Retrofit Install SCE cost offset * $137.00 Monthly solar cost `* ($82.00) Gross monthly savings $55.00 Maintenance costs***-$25.00 Net monthly savings $30.00 TOU-D-A Pndng and Time Periods Nkr--*eh.F.C.*tixure..r. r.F,.r.—,, &L. — Cuv Qrpr Sit 1111 ROM HWYM �+w [YLPabw,dnnvb (1 Snn VP.. Vrow M1* GKPNr O=b"eYcW+M+f.lnv,¢u ono" New Construction Net Monthly Financed Cost (Year 11 $137.00 ($44.00) $93.00 -$25.00 $78.00 * SCE cost offset based on 6,000 kWh of annual production @ a blended pro forma rate of $0.2733 per kWh. Pro forma rate is net of Nonbypassable Charges (NBCs) of $0.0261 per kWh. 6,000 x $0.2733 = $1,640 annual cost offset; $1,640 / 12 = $137 monthly cost offset. Does not include future annual electricity rate increases (estimated by the California Energy Commission at 2.11% until 2020 and 1.42% after 2020). '* Monthly solar cost based on 10%down payment; 8.5%fixed interest rate for retrofit install and 4.5%for new construction. *" To ensure maximum efficiency from PV panels, periodic maintenance is recommended. U mar ocv w pruRas ow:Flc�or: SUSTAINABILITY •.nP� ,� PRESENTED FOR COMMISSION MEETING DATE: 22/20/16 SUBCOMMITTEE NAME: Green Building / Solar {with Planning Commission liaison) SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED BY: David Freedman SUBMITTED DATE: 12/15/16 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES: 11/21, 12/S,12/12,12/15/16 i NEXT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 01112/17 Subcommittee Meeting Goals: • Meet with Staff to prepare for study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar mandate (meetings of 11/21, 12/5 and 12/12/16). • Meet with Staff to follow upon study session with Planning Commission on proposed solar mandate and prepare for full Commission meeting (meeting of 12115/16). Summary: Subcommittee members met with Staff to prepare for and follow up on the study session with the Planning Commission on a proposed solar mandate that took place on December 14, 2016. The study session Included a presentation of the Subcommittee's research and proposals by Planning Commissioner Middleton and Commissioner Freedman, testimony from invited stakeholders representing a broad range of views an the topic, public comment, and comments from the Planning Commissioners and the Director of Planning Services. Based on the input received, the Subcommittee's recommendations for a proposed solar ordinance are set out below. The Planning Commission will consider the recommendations at its meeting of January 11, 2017. Recommendation/Request • Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (2.0 watts per square foot). • Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings. • Also applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, and to all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. • At the time of submittal of a building permit application for any residential dwelling or retrofit project meeting the thresholds, an applicant must submit plans and an application for the 12d mandatory solar photovoltaic system. • Retrofit requirements maybe waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas. • Retrofit requirements for additions not applicable where the addition is an accessory second unit (e.g., casita). • New construction requirements not applicable to affordable housing (as defined in state and federal standards) if the additional cost is not fully funded without recourse to the residents, unless solar Installation is already mandated by state or federal law. • For market -rate new construction of less than 1,500 square feet for single-family residences and less than 1,250 square feet for multifamily residences, the solar requirement may be satisfied by meeting the requirements to achieve "Green Leaf' status under CVAG's Green Building Program checklist. ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS REQUEST TO OFFICE OF , SUSTAINABILITY Recommend proposed solar ordinance to City Council for adoption. Assist Department of Planning Services as needed in its preparation for discussion of proposed solar ordinance at its meeting of January 11, 2017, If recommendations are approved by Planning and Sustainability Commissions, work with relevant Staff members and City Attorney to prepare an ordinance, findings resolution and Staff Report for consideration by City Council. POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT/REQUEST IF ANY: Adoption of a local amendment to the energy efficiency requirements in the Green Building Standards Code will require approval by the California Energy Commission (CEC). A cost effectiveness study must be submitted to the CEC as part of the approval process. The cost of that study is not determinable at this time. i�5 EXCERPT OF MINUTES At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held January 11, 2017, the Planning Commission took the following action: 4A. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION RELATING TO A PROPOSED MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. (FF) Planning Director Fagg provided an overview on the proposed residential solar strategy as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Middleton gave a brief introduction of the proposed solar strategy developed by the Green Building/Solar Subcommittee. Sustainability Commissioner Freedman provided a summary of the proposed residential Solar Strategy as outlined in the staff memorandum. Vice -Chair Weremiuk said they would need the accurate numbers from solar companies and builders. She noted concern with the down payment and would like to see the savings for a medium priced home. She would like to forward a complete package to the City Council. Commissioner Lowe commented that he completely supports alternative energy and had questions regarding: • The coverage and average consumption use • Solar impacts on mortgage. Vice -Chair Weremiuk questioned if the solar systems are currently expandable. Commissioner Lowe requested details on the costs associated with purchasing vs. leasing the solar equipment. Chair Calerdine concurred that making solar panels affordable and making sure the numbers are accurate. ACTION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow the Green Building/Solar Subcommittee to: 1. Firm up the numbers and exhibits presented to the Commission. 2. The independent study that is required by the State can be initiated and move forward. 3. Conceptually the Planning Commission is in agreement to move forward. 1G6 Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt City of Palm Springs January 11, 2017 Motion: Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Lowe and unanimously carried 5-0-2 on a roll call vote. I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs on the 11t" day of January, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Chair Calerdine, Vice -Chair Weremiuk, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Donenfeld, Commissioner Hirschbein Terri Hintz Planning Administrative Coordinator 2 1 �.'� ATTACHMENT #7 1�8 F4pMSp�'y CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES �O•ro.nao r °4lFOR�'P MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 2017 To: Planning Commission From: Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services Subject: Proposed Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction A proposed residential solar strategy has been developed by the Green Building/Solar Subcommittee of the Sustainability Commission (Freedman, Otto), with input by a liaison from the Planning Commission (Middleton). The proposal was presented to the Sustainability Commission on December 20, 2016, and the commission voted to recommend approval of the proposal. The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on December 20, 2016 (held jointly with members of the Sustainability Commission), and was presented for discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2017. The item was continued to a date uncertain to allow for additional study materials to be prepared. After the January 11th meeting, staff retained the firm of EcoMotion to prepare a solar cost- effectiveness study (see Attachment #2). The study updates general solar metrics for California Climate Zone 15, which includes the Coachella Valley. In addition, the calculations provided in the study are based on Southern California Edison's new rate structure, which is proposed to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The study concludes that photovoltaic systems will be cost effective for the residential sector, even if tax credits and incentives are not present, The draft language of the proposed ordinance has been updated to reflect some of the input received from stakeholder groups and members of the Planning Commission. The following summary reflects the proposed language that is included as Attachment #1 to this memo: • Require the installation of a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system with a nameplate wattage 2.0 times or greater than the square footage of the home (no change from 1/11/17 version), • Applicable to all new construction of single and multifamily residential dwellings (no change from 1/11/17 version). • Applicable to any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases the square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square 129 feet, and to all single-family residential remodels, alterations or renovations that are made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure (no change from 1/11/17 version). • Retrofit requirements for additions not applicable where the addition is an accessory second unit (no change from 1/11/17 version). • Requirements not applicable to affordable housing (as defined in state law) if the additional cost is not fully funded without recourse to the residents, unless solar installation is already mandated by state or federal law (no change from 1/11/17 version). • Requirement for solar PV system may be reduced or waived by the Building Code Appeals Board upon of the following criteria: 1. Price of single-family house will be less than 75% of current median sales price or less than 50% of current median sales price for multifamily unit; or 2. Site -specific conditions make solar installation infeasible, such as building site conditions, limited rooftop availability, or shading from nearby structures or vegetation; or 3. Participation in other certification programs (Green for Life, LEED, Passive House Institute US) which will result in greater energy savings than Title 24 requirements (revised from 1/11/17 version). This item is being presented to the Planning Commission as an informational item, as it does not propose changes to the City's zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission may choose to forward comments on the draft measures to the City Council. As the proposal may impact future development proposals, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the draft measures and provide comments accordingly. The following documents are provided as attachments to this memo: 1. Proposed Draft — Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction 2. Solar Ordinance Cost -Effectiveness Study (03/06/17) 3. Subcommittee Report -- Sustainability Commission (dated 12/20/16) 4. Materials from the Planning Commission Study Session (12/14/16) 5. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2017 Page 2 130 Draft Ordinance: Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction PSMC Section 8.04.072. California Green Building Standards Code -Amendments and Deletions. The California Green Building Standards Code adopted by reference pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of this Chapter is hereby modified by the following additions: 4.201.2 Residential Solar Photovoltaic - When Required 1. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 apply to: (a) all newly constructed single-family residential buildings; (b) all newly constructed multiple -family residential buildings classified in Residential Groups R-2 and R-3, as defined respectively in Sections 310.4 and 310.5 of the California Building Code adopted by reference pursuant to Section 8.04.010 of this Chapter; (c) any addition to an existing single-family residential building that increases its square footage by 25% or greater, provided that the increase is at least 500 square feet, except where the addition is an accessory second unit; and (d) any remodel, alteration or renovation to an existing single-family residential building that is made involving demolition, remodel or renovation of more than 50% of the structure. 2. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to low-income residential housing as such term is defined in Section 2852(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code if the cost of installation of the solar photovoltaic system is not fully funded without recourse to the residents of such low- income residential housing unless4hc ir:stallatis : cl rcdy- mandated by cr rcgulatic-:. 3. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to factory -built housing as such term is defined in Section 19971 of the California Health and Safety Code. 4. The provisions of Section 4.201.3 do not apply to any project that was fully entitled as of the date of entry into effect of such Section. 5. At the time of submittal of a permit application for a residential building meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section, an applicant shall submit plans and an application for a solar photovoltaic 13; system in accordance with the sizing requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.3. 4,201.3 Residential Solar Photovoltaic Installations 1. All residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4,201.2 shall install a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum total wattage equal to two (2) watts times the total square footage of the subject building. The system shall be located on -site. c: A;zl buildings having a p jest4d-retail Sales -pfise of less thCn [' ° Fesir�vcFitial havi i g a YA,'meted detail bales nFiwe of lens than [601% of the Fnedian sales PF'ee of single family hemes in Palm SpFings duFing the J' is £f subdiAsier. 1 of th'G SeetieR Mey be satisfied by meeting the -xeqWi; s„ReAts te aGhieye "GFeeR I= 3f" stz1•.j.4= Csysl .r.en►'s Green Sui ling 12rsgram sheekliist in effieet at the t*me--Gf sLttrrif al 9f the permit in -Pair- SX-'. ,,��{{�� d shGll P014611 th*6 figUF nn �L+e rlen.� tFnen4'c. webakee. The requirement for installation of a solar photovoltaic system may be waived or the total wattage reouirement may be reduced upon a determination by the Buildina Code Appeals Board. The board shall consider one or more of the followina criteria in makina a determination for a waiver or reduction: (a) The residential buildino(s) will be developed or sold at a price that is less than 75% of the current median sales price for new sinole-family construction or 50% of the median sales orice for new multifamily home construction in Palm Sprinas. whichever may be applicable: (b) Practical challenges make the installation of a solar ohotovoltaic system infeasible. such as buildina site location. limited rooftop availability, shadina from nearbv structures. topoaraohv. or vegetation: or (c) Participation in other certification oroarams (CVAG's Green for Life program. t-EED certification. Passive House Institute US certification. or similar) which will result in enerav savinas areater than what would be required under Title 24 of the California Buildina Standards Code. N With respeat to single faMnilry Fe SriuQ,nLbuildings Vis) er 1(d)—efSestieR 4.291.2, the sati6fasti3,',: cf tkc - es mr y ba--a lit-1, sr chad+Rg 4. Solar energy systems that are leased by the end -use customer (tenant or owner) or that supply electricity to the end -use customer through a power purchase agreement (PPA) may be used to satisfy the requirements of subdivision 1 of this Section. 5. Newly constructed residential buildings meeting the scoping requirements of subdivision 1 of Section 4.201.2 shall comply with the 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Code without claiming the solar compliance credit described in Section 2.2.3 of the 2016 Title 24, Part 6, Residential Alternative Calculation Method. 3 EXCERPT OF MINUTES At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission took the following action: 3113. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION RELATING TO A PROPOSED MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. (FF) Vice -Chair Weremiuk said she supports the solar ordinance and did some research with the largest solar builder in town said that 100% of the purchasers bought the solar package. She left the Council Chamber at 5:43 pm for the remainder of the meeting. Planning Director Fagg provided background information on the proposed solar ordinance. Commissioner Middleton said one of the biggest hurdles they faced was trying to carve out some measure that would allow an exemption for affordable homes. Ultimately, they came up with a process that allows a developer file an appeal to the Building Codes Appeal Board for an exemption on their project. Chair Calerdine said he supports the proposed ordinance; however, he still has reservations over the affordability issues and does not see this addressed. He requested a note to the City Council that they remain concerned about the impact of affordability. Commissioner Donenfeld said we are in the forefront of a major change statewide and Palm Springs should be a leader in this area. He is concerned about affordability but supports the framework as proposed. ACTION: Receive the report and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Motion: Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Chair Calerdine and unanimously carried 6-0-1 on a roll call vote. I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs on the 26th day of April, 2017, by the following vote: 134 Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt City of Palm Springs April 26, 2017 AYES: Chair Calerdine, Commissioner Donenfeld, Commissioner Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chair Weremiuk (Vice Chair Weremiuk left the meeting before the vote was taken) (:;;�3 Terri Hintz ✓ Planning Administrative Coordinator 2 ATTACHMENT #8 136 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF TRIBAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT May 16, 2017 Mayor Robert Moon and City Council CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 CAHUILLA INDIAM HAND DELIVERED ai h�,ii�IniixSw,,t�ft RE: Proposed Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Construction Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council, The Tribal Council. of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reviewed the above referenced Ordinance at its meeting of May 9, 2017, and recommends denial of the proposed Ordinance to the City Council. The Tribe is concerned about the overall impact on housing costs, particularly to first-time homebuyers and workforce housing. A typical system payback of 11-14 years is not cost effective enough to justify this mandate. This ordinance also relies on the availability of energy efficiency finance programs such as PACE and Ygrene. Allotted Trust landowners and their lessees do not qualify for those programs, placing on them yet another financial burden. Please contact me should you have any questions at 760-883-1326. Respectfully submitted, p4j Margaret E. Park, AICP Director of Planning & Natural Resources AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS C: Tribal Council Tom Davis, Chief Planning & Development Officer Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Services, City of Palm Springs 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 l,s T 7601699/6800 F 760/699/6823 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN.GOV 201" BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Fred Bell Nobell En,rg, Solunois I" VICE PRESIDENT Deborah McGarre� Southern California Gas Cotnpan% 2' VICE PRESIDENT Tom Dubose Development Design & Engineering SECMARY%TREASURER Eileen Eske Pacific Premier Bank VICE PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATES Allan I,ev in Allan Levin & AssoeiaicF PAST PRESIDENT Bruce Maize Disco, ery Builde, s CHIEF EXECU'17VE OFFICER Gretchen Gul'.trrz DIRECTORS Brian Benaietti Brian Benedetti Construction Mark Benedetti WC Select Build Margaret Drum Margaret Drury Construction Mario Gonzales GHA Companies Mark Gran Strictly Busiress Consulting Joe Ha; es First Ben" Todd Honks Agua Calteute Band of Caliwlia indians Dave Lippert Lipper[ Cousliuctinn_ Inc H.adter Loutsenhi ,er Davis Reed Paul Mahnneo PMA Adtcjdsing Dan Olivier Nether Mueller Oil% ier \Ian Pacc Petra Geotecitnical John Poncll Jr. Coachella Vallee Water District Phil Stnitb Sunrise Comnam Patrick Sit a: shout Habitat for Fluraanil-N Jeff Wattenbarger Wattenbareer Construvbon ®% i t nV A desert valleys builders association April 24, 2017 City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Attn: Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Dear Mr. Fagg, On behalf of the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA), we would like to thank you, along with members of the Planning Commission and Sustainability Committee for the opportunity to be engaged with the City of Palm Springs on the Proposed Solar mandate for new residential construction, along with the other aspects of the proposed Ordinance. While the DVBA is supportive of goals that will create a more sustainable community and meet the requirements for the City of Palm Springs Sustainability Plan, the additional burden of solar mandated on new residential construction does little to increase or meet those efficiency goals. Current Title 24 California' Building Codes (effective January V, 2017), require that all new residential construction be made "solar ready". What does this mean? It means that the new residence is pre -wired (or plumbed as the correct terminology) to have everything ready for the final installation of the panels and invertor to make operational. This provides the opportunity for the new resident to best determine the solar contractor, financing/leasing options, etc. that best work for them. Additionally, as referenced throughout the Eco Motion study(s), the return on investment (cost) of a new system has a minimum of 18+ years before there is a return cost benefit to the system installation. Any full system installation will be adding to the cost of construction and ultimately to the total sales price of the new residence. While the studies referenced in the staff report do list the proposed cost estimates of installation, the reality of market rate pricing on a typical residential unit will potentially increase $25K or more, subject to the cost of construction, installation, carry of financing of system, etc. 75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 9221 1 (760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax www.thedvba.org 1�� 2017 8OARD OF DIRECTORS nV A PRESIDENT desert valleys builders association Fred Bell Nobel] Enera. ' SoLitions I" VICE PRESIDENT Deborah McGarre% To the specific areas of concern with the proposed ordinance: Southern California Gay Camper.} 2"" VICE PRESIDENT Tom Dubose 4.201.3 (2a) Determination of the projected retail sales price of less than 75% of the Development Design & Engineering median sales price in Palm Springs during the previous fiscal year, etc. etc..... SECRETA R P,TREASUREK ... Depending on data collection'and/or source of data, this number may not Gile"n E,kc Pacific Pretaiar Bans: be reflective of a true median sales price. Incorporation of resale home sites r ICT. PRESIDENT into this calculation will potentially lower the median sales price overall, and OF,ISSOCI ITES should not be considered as part of the calculations. Allan Levin Allan Lenin & Associates PAST PRESIDENT 4.201.3(4) Solar energy systems leased by end -user customer. New Bruce Maize Disco�en Builder; residential owners are unable to lease or purchase solar systems, nor engage with a power purchase agreement (PPA) until such time as the resident has CHIEF EXECUTIllf OFFICER closed escrow. Thereby the homebuyer is precluded from making the best Gretchen Gutierrc, choice for themselves as to type of system, financing, etc. for that system. DIRECTORS detti Brio Benedetti Last year (2016), the City of Palm Springs issued a total of 137 Single Family Briar, Benedetti Cnnstntctton ~lark scncdetti Residence permits. This number is only a slight increase from 2015 (129 SFD units). 1i. [C Select Build Therefore, the incremental energy efficiency savings based solely on new residential viarearet Dru tvlarguet I)cir Cnnstructinn construction is minute at best. %%,trio Gonzales; GHA Companies An Alternative solution for the City should be the expanded promotion and use of Mark Chan Strictly Business Consulting the CVAG managed PACE {grogram (Ygrene, Hero, and others). Currently, while the Joe Ha} es City ranks first in dollar figure valuation of projects completed (amongst Ygrene and First Bank -Todd [ looks Hero figures), it ranks 3`' and 4"' respectively in terms of number of projects actually Agua Caliente Band of CnhuWa [ndians undertaken to date. The City of Palm Springs would see greater efficiency within its Dare rt Crnstruction. lac Lippert Lippert Plan with increased promotion and assistance to current residences and businesses Heather Loutsenhtzer throughout the city, many of which predate the origins of Title 24 Energy Standards Davis [teed implemented in 1978. This can make use of a variety of efficiency components, Paul Mahone} P;``iA .Wvertisinu such as new heating and air conditioning units, upgrades in windows and insulation, Dan Olivier lighting and plumbing, and of course, solar installations. Nether% Mueller OhI ier .Alan Pac- Petra Geotechnical Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input and comments to the John Povrelh Jr. proposed recommendations. The DVBA looks forward to continued engagement on Coachella Valle. Water District Phil Smith this subject with the Planning Commissioners, City Staff and others as appropriate. Sunrise company Patrick Swarthout Habitat for Humanit, est rand JetT w attenbarger - Wattenbarger Construction Gret hen Guti rrez CEO e Valleys Builders Association 751 0 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 922 1 1 (760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax www.thedvba.org 2017 BOARD 01• DIRU TORS PRESIDENT Fred Bell Nobell Energy Solutions 1,' LICE PRESIDENT' Deborah AMcGarrey Southern California Gas Compan} 21d VICE PRESIDENT Tom Dubose Development Design d Engineering SECRF,T fRY/TREASCRLR Eileen Eske Pacific Premier Bnn!< VICE PRESIDENT OFASSOC IATES Allan Levin Allan Lcvin & Associatcs PAST PRESIDENT Bruce \Maize Dtscoven Buddets CHIEF F_ VECl1TI VE OFFI (T R Gretchen Gutierrez DIRECTORS Brian Benedetti Brim Benedetti Construction Mark Benedetti W.IC' Select BLIA6 .Marearct Darn Margaret Drun• Construction Mario Gonzal"s GHA Companies Mark Gran Strieth, Business Consulting Joe Haves First Ban"., Todd hooks Agua Caliente Band ofCahuilia Indians Dat e Lippert Lippert Construction. inc Heather Loutsenhizer Dads Reed Paul Mahonav Pti•iA Ad,,erttsing Dan Olivier Nlethen \Muclier Olivier Atari Paca Petra Geotechniccl John POSrell. Jr. Coachella Valle% Rater Disnict Phil Smith Sunrise Company Patrick Swarthota Habitat for Humanih_ Jeff Wattenbarg�r Wattenbarecr Construction > %it :;nVA desert valleys builders association June 22, 2016 City of Palm Springs Mayor Robert Moon, Honorable Members of the Council 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Ca 92262 RE: Mandating Solar Installation —New Residential Construction Dear Mayor Moon, Thank you for including the Desert Valleys Builders Association in this discussion regarding the proposed mandating of solar installation on all new Single Family Residences. While recognizing the City of Palm Springs' desire to become a leader in sustainability to both its residents and outside the community, mandating solar onto the backs of one segment of users is not going to accomplish the City's goals & objectives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the entire community. • The communities referenced in the presented Staff Report draw largely on Coastal Communities and their specific needs. The Coachella Valley & its residents have a unique weather climate unlike significant parts of the rest of California. Those communities have spent years in developing their programs and in one case —the City of Lancaster— has actually become their own utility district, with direct energy purchased from So. California Edison in an effort to assist all residents & businesses with their energy usage. • Further, the proposed requirements for solar panel sizing & KwH generation will, in all likelihood not be accepted by the current utility during an application process. The current standard of practice is acceptance of 70- 80% of generation from the individual applicant to the grid. Based on the proposal, each applicant will be overproducing to the grid, thereby negating any savings to the consumer and in all likelihood, possible rejection by the utility. 75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 9221 1 (760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fox www.thedvba.or9 140 2017 BOARD OF WRECTO11S PRESIDENT Fred Belt Nobell Energ3 Solutions I" VICE PRESIDENT Debi ah McGarrev Southern California Gas Compr.a} 2" [7CE PRESIDENT Toni Dubose Development Design & Engineering SFCRETA R inRF.ASPRFIt T ;Lc m rske Pucitie Premier Bank VICE PRESIDENT OFASSOCIA TES �Jlan Levin Allan Levin & Associates PAST PRESIDENT Bruce Maize Discover) Builder, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Gretchen LrtnldrreZ DIRECTORS Brian Bcnedeld Brian Benedetti ConStr4ctlOn ;dark Beacdeul Bl4C Select Build Margaret Dru ti Margaret Dnin r'cnstruction Mario Gonzales GHA Comparies Mari: Gran Strictly Bueiness Consulting Joe Haves First Bank Todd Hook, Agua Cahente Band orCaliaida Indians Dave Lippert Lippert Construction. Inc H:athcr Louts.:nhizcr Davis Rzed P;.,d Mahoney PMA Ads -nisina Dan Olivier Nether Muelie- Oli•, ie- Alan Pacz Petra Geotechnical John Pon ell. Jr. Coachella Valley Water District Phil Smith Sunrise Company Patrick Slt arthout Habitat for Humanit_. JeIT Wattenbarger Wauenbarger Construction desert valleys builders association • Additionally, the cost of a fully installed, energized system will run from $30K and up, depending on the total square footage of the residence. While the initial costs would be borne by the homebuilder, the ultimate cost would be borne by the new homebuyer, thus continuing to drive home pricing upwards within the City. Current California Building Codes require homebuilders to provide a "solar ready zone" in compliance with California Title 24, Part fi Energy Standards — Section 110.10. The California Building Codes are regularly updated, every three years. Part of that process is to meet State of California Legislated goals related to the reduction of energy use, dependence on fossil fuels and the reduction in the production of greenhouse gas emissions. The goal for new construction is net zero energy NZE homes by 2020, requiring energy conservation and generation on -site. California has the most stringent and strictly enforced 'green' construction policies of the nation. The next set of new standards are right around the corner. The Desert Valleys Builders Association recommends: • Continued Compliance with the current & future California Building Codes requirements. • The City of Palm Springs, together with CVAG, work to promote the successful use of "HERO", "YGrene" and other financing programs with actual numbers and interviews from their clientele and to further expand the message to existing residences & business. The Desert Valleys Builders Association has been a supporter of the HERO & Ygrene programs, along with other programs that CVAG is in the process of developing for existing homeowners & businesses to use for adopting their energy efficient needs. These programs offer both a source of valuable information for homeowners, as well as a variety of financing options to make their homes & businesses more environmentally friendly. We believe those programs should be expanded to reach all segments of the community. 75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 9221 1 (760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax www.thedvba.org 14.E 2W BOARD OF DIP EC TORS PRESIDENT Fred Bell Kobell Energ) SOILIVOnS P' VICE PRESIDENT Debora', McGarr;} Southeni California Gas Compan, 2•'d PXF. PRF..SIDENT Tom Dubos. Development Design K Engin Gering SECRET, tR I%TRE4SVRER Eileen Eskc Pacific Premier 3.uik 1110E PRESIDENT OFASSOCIATEs Allah Lenin Allan Luvi,i & Associates PAST PRESIDENT Bruce Maim Discovers Builder; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Gretchen Guticrtez - - -- DIRECTORS Brian Benedetti Brian Benedetti Construction Mark Benedetti 13MC Select Guild ' Iareeret Drury ivtargarct Drury Consiruction Mario Gontale, GHA Cornpanies Mar; Gran Strictly Busi-ness Consu'tng Joe Hayes First Bank Todd Hooks Aqua Caliente Band of Cahwlla Indians Dave I,ippert Lippert Construction. Inc Heather LOULSenhizer Davis Revd Peul Mahoney PMA Ad-ertisinQ Dan Olivier Ncthcn MuellcrOlirier Alan Pace Petra Geoterhnica! John Poii ell. Jr. Coachella Vallcv Water District Phi' Smith Sunrise C•ompan) Patrick S\1arthout Habitat for Humanih_ Jeff VA attenbarger Wattenbargcr Construction s%n i A desert valleys builders association Once again, thank you for inviting the Desert Valleys Builders Association into this discussion. We are the local construction industry resource. With our offices in Palm Desert, we are well aware of the challenges our desert climate presents. We are available to assist yourselves & city staff as you continue discussiing this issue. 75100 Mediterranean ® Palm Desert • CA 92211 (7601 776-7001 office 0 (760) 776-7002 fax www.thedvba.org 14(1 ATTACHMENT #9 143 DOCKETED Docket Number: 17-BSTD-01 Project Title: 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards PreRulemaking TN #: 220969 Document Title: Presentation - Proposed 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards ZNE Strategy Description: Presentation by Maziar Shirakh, made at the 8-30-17 Staff Workshop. Filer: Adrian Ownby Organization: California Energy Commission Submitter Role: Commission Staff Submission 8/30/2017 3:53:13 PM Date: Docketed Date: 8/30/2017 14Z Proposed 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards ZNE Strategy Building Standards Office: Mazi Shirakh, PE ZNE Lead and Advisor for Building Energy Efficiency Standards (BEES) Christopher Meyer Manager, Building Standards Office Bill Pennington Senior Technical and Program Advisor to the Energy Efficiency Division Payam Bozogchami, PE Project Manager, BEES Danny Tam Mechanical Engineer Countdown to 2020 August 30, 2017 2019 ZNE Strategy � Content 1. Proposed ZNE Strategy — Parts 6 and 11 2. CBECC-Res Software Tools for ZNE ♦�,`Ol CIl.1O.y N�7 2019 Standards Goals - Path to the Future • ENINOY [p11N1E41ON 1. Increase building energy efficiency cost effectively 2. For Part 6, make progress toward the ZNE goal as possible within the confines of NEM and life cycle costing rules, while recognizing that Part 6 is an important but not the only tool for achieving ZNE 3. Contribute to the State's GHG reduction goals 4. Promote self -utilization of the PV generation by encouraging or requiring demand flexibility and grid harmonization strategies s. Provide independent compliance path for both mixed -fuel and all electric homes 6. Achieve the above goals while ensuring real benefits for the building occupants with positive benefit to cost ratios for all efficiency and generation measures 7 " 3 Provide the tools for local governments to adopt ordinances to 11 Reach Codes, and other beyond code practices The proposed 2019 Standards strategy will accomplish all seven goals listed above achieve ZNE through Part ZNE Goals - Grid Harmonization Grid harmonization strategies (GHS) must be coupled with customer owned PV systems to bring maximum benefits to the grid, environment, and the home owner GHSs are strategies that maximize self -utilization of the PV array output and minimize exports back to the grid; examples of GHS include but are not limited to battery storage, demand response, thermal storage, and for some homeowners, EV grid integration. 4 r CH, GOODIE: 7CL IVF LEAWNFP TO WALK L FWIGHT - Now WE C..4N TAKE E34Li_ROOM QANC�NG LE�SQN�? i 1,0 61 vd -j*k4OLAArC<XK W. Ic Au' ZNE Goals - 2019 Standards Approach. The 2019 Standards will recognize the following priority for efficiency and generation resources: 1. Envelope efficiency, 2. Appropriately sized PVs, and 3. Grid harmonization strategies that maximize self -utilization of the PV output and limit exports to the grid Further, the standards must be framed in a way to encourage competition, innovation, and flexibility to foster new solutions as the grid and technologies evolve. H.Gl... LL I -^F'f POeMeO "M Cn.nae FXtl.w 1Y.4 Mbean bMsll M.M .[c..m 'vpn' f ONvlvtll� Fn,r,r. O. I O(s• uoaany � v v �r an on a... FYY Fbor �+ff�'� f 68 $eCOMFb % f 0* u.Ha rw.�.w Cw.a�17m .tum (,.fran Te''W - 67 «ten.. 69 12V 100AH DEEP CYCLE LITHIUM ION BATTERY Standards and PV Sizing • For Part 6, PV is sized to net out the buildings annual kWh; larger PV array may be installed but will not receive additional compliance credit • For Part 11 compliance, CBECC allows PV array coupled with a 6 kWh battery storage system to be oversized by a factor of 1.6; this PV size: Provides additional flexibility for the grid; the battery enables the increased PV capacity to be used by the utility to meet high demand during critical peak periods Promotes self -utilization on peak since PV is coupled with battery storage The 1.6 cap ensures a greater than 1.0 benefit to cost ratio for the building owner even if hourly exports are compensated only at avoided cost • CBECC provides a size limit bypass checkbox that once checked allows exceeding the 1.6 times size limit, with a warning that this option may violate NEM sizing rules `',t0U4F�h 4 Builds on Commission's Energy Design n Rating Tool ._ Energy Design Rating (EDR) score show how close a home is to the ZNE target Aligned with RESNET y Reference home is a 2006 IECC compliant home, EDR=100 � A score of zero means the house is a ZNE building CEC's CBECC-Res software has the capability to calculate EDR scores for EE and PV Builders can use a combination of envelope energy efficiency features, better appliances, PVs, and other strategies to get to the target EDR Download CBECC-Res here for free: http://www.bwilcox.com/BEES/BEES.html More Energy 150 Existing 140 Homes 130 120 110 Reference �� Home 100 90 80 70 l&60 This Home 50 Zero Energy Home �7 I ' ©2013RESNET 40 - 30 - 20 -10 DO wLess Energy CAL,.;S 7 Proposed 2019 Standards Approach o EME44Y COXNISSION ' Energy Design Rating (EDR) targets for each climate zone: 1. An EDR level for energy efficiency features based on 2019 prescriptive measures — This EDR target can only be met using energy efficiency measures, i.e., no PV tradeoff 2. An EDR Contribution for the PV system that is sized to displace the home's annual kWhs 3. Subtract the PV EDR Contribution from the energy efficiency EDR to determine the final target EDR V.) Proposed 2019 Standards Approach i. Maximize envelope efficiency as allowed by LCC and calculate EE EDR i. HPA to R19 in severe CZs - Currently R13 ii. HPW to 0.043 - 0.046 U-factor in severe CZs - Currently 0.051 Windows U-factor of 0.30 and SHGC of 0.23 - Currently 0.32 and 0.25 iv. QII as a prescriptive requirement Establish an Energy Design Rating (EDR) for energy efficiency in each CZ that can only be met with efficiency measures (no PV tradeoff against EE) 2. Calculate EDR of PV system as follows: i. Calculate the PV size required to displace the kWh in each CZ ii. Calculate the EDR contribution of the PV array 3. Subtract the PV EDR contribution from the EE EDR contribution to establish the final EDR that the building must meet to comply in each CZ Note: Examples are presented in later slides ti9 6.� d� � nx--eeo Target EDR's Many Advantages i. A target EDR establishes a performance benchmark that the building must meet to comply; consistent with the Warren-Alquist Act performance standards expectation to provide builders with compliance flexibility 2. Target EDR allows the builder to use more efficiency and less PV to get to the target; such as high performance glazing, Energy Star appliances, and higher than minimum HVAC systems that we are prevented from requiring because of preemption issues 3. The EDR concept can be used to right size the PV system for low EDR and ZNE goals by taking advantage of grid harmonization strategies including battery storage, thermal storage, and demand response and flexibility strategies 4. Target EDR is fully compatible with setting reach codes, local jurisdiction simply identifies a lower target EDR (or zero) that can be met with a combination of additional EE, PV, demand response/flexibility, EV integration, or storage 5. Target EDR works well with varying building sizes — static PV size does not 10 r SOS Target EDR Advantages -Example � Here is an example of how CBECC-Res calculates the Target EDR for both EE and PV in CZ12 for the 2,700 sf house: 2019 CZ12 atoort2 - v3012 S22 G20 Mai Uompliance Summary Energy Design Rating I Energy Use Details L I i0 EDR of Proposed Efficiency_ 41 .9 - EDR of Prop PV + Flexibility: 19.1 = Final Proposed EDR: F 22.8 EDR of Standard Efficiency_ F 43.2 - EDR of Minimum Required PV: 18.5 = Final Std Design EDR: F24.7 Reference Reference Reference Proposed Proposed Proposed Design Rating Design Design Design Design Design Design Margin End Use Site (kVVh) Site (therms) (kI UV/tt`-yr) Site (kVVh) bite (therms) (kIUVltV-yr) (kIUV/tt`-yr) Bpace I leating 504 400.0 45.09 107 217.2 19.51 25.50 Space Cooling 1,729 59.71 317 17.22 42.49 IAQ Ventilation 194 1.99 194 1.99 0.00 Other HVAG 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Heating 176.3 13.03 119.9 6.66 4.17 Photovoltaic s -5,022 -43.51 43.51 Battery 0.00 0.00 Inside Lighting 2,615 30.42 616 6.90 23.44 Appl. & Cooking 989 73.4 15.65 1,040 45.1 14.46 1.19 Plug Loads 3,207 3G.00 2,371 Z.03 10.03 Exterior 328 3.54 162 1.61 1.93 TOTAL 9,705 735.7 204.49 -146 382.3 52.15 152.34 ~11 Dunc vrt Parallel Prescriptive Paths There will be two parallel prescriptive paths for compliance, one for each of: 1. Mixed Fuel Homes 2. All -Electric Homes This allows the all -electric and mixed fuel homes to have their own prescriptive paths, NEEA Tier 3 HPWH models can easily be used to meet or exceed standard design using the performance path dot �KYb_ ♦� '4Ti r� All -Electric Homes and GHG Goals W.�.�...b. Home electrification when combined with PVs and demand flexibility strategies can result in environmental benefits as well as grid, and occupant benefits 12V 100AH DEEP CYCLE LITHIUM ION BATTERY �pF CAI�epA 1 Extreme Efficiency and ZNE t Can extreme energy efficiency regardless of cost achieve full ZNE (EDR of 0)? • Even if we eliminate all heating, cooling, hot water, and IAQ loads, we'll still end up with an EDR score of 25-30, the theoretical limit for efficiency EDR! • That is because in most climate zones plug loads are now the dominant loads and they are unaffected by efficiency measures, extreme or not • 2019 Standards efficiency EDRs are in the 43-48 range depending on the CZ • "Practical" efficiency measures - without renewables and demand flexibility - can move the EDR score by no more than 7-9 points in severe CZs, less in milder CZs to -34-41 range! Conclusions: 1. Limited opportunity for regulated loads to lower EDR in the future 2. Need PV + demand flexibility to achieve low EDR scores or ZNE �- 14 C;I CO 4 or c�4�oo4. Calgreen Tiers and Target EDR Scores w • 2016 Standards have efficiency EDR scores in mid 50s in most CZs • 2016 Calgreen has three tiers • Tier 1 - 15% better than Part 6 • Tier 2 - 30% better than Part 6 • And a ZNE tier with EDR score of zero • 2019 Standards final EDR scores including PVs are in mid 20s in most CZs • No need (room) for three Calgreen tiers anymore; two tiers may be sufficient • A tier 1 that will get halfway to EDR 0 established based on default battery controls and PV oversizing factor of ~ 1.3 or less • A second tier with EDR score of zero established based on advanced battery controls and PV oversizing factor of - 1.4 or less Builders may use a combination of PV, efficiency measures including higher appliances efficiencies, and demand flexibility measures to reach these target EDRs most cost effectively Note for following slides: each EDR point is - 170 watts of PV, roughly about half a PV panel P"15 C:i cfl Target EDR Examples by Climate Zone Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios 2700 sf Prototype, Mixed Fuel Part 6 Tier 1 Tier 2 Recommended EDR Scores For 2019 Part 6 PV 2019 EDR EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Size Tier 2 OS Tier 1 Tier 2 Efficiency Size, kW with Part 6 1.3 OS 1.2 OS 1.1 OS LOOS with Adv Factor EDR DC PV Factor and Factor and Factor and Factor and Battery & Basic Basic Basic Basic EDR=O, kW Battery Battery Battery Battery DC Cz 1 48.0 3.4 26.5 15.5 17.9 4.5 1.3 16.0 0.0 2 44.6 2.9 23.8 13.1 1S.1 3.6 1.2 12.0 0.0 3 42.7 2.5 22.4 11.8 14.2 2.8 1.1 12.0 0.0 4 43.6 2.9 22.4 9.4 11.5 13.6 3.0 1.0 12.0 0.0 5 40.1 2.3 20.9 10.5 12.1 14.6 2.5 1.1 12.0 0.0 6 48.7 2.9 22.6 6.5 11.8 14.7 3.1 1.1 12.0 0.0 7 47.5 2.7 19.6 4.5 9.6 12.8 2.4 0.9 12.0 0.0 8 45.2 3.0 20.3 4.2 8.9 11.4 3.0 1.0 12.0 0.0 9 46.4 3.1 23.4 6.2 9.9 12.5 3.6 1.1 12.0 0.0 10 45.3 3.3 23.5 4.6 9.3 11.7 3.8 1.2 12.0 0.0 11 42.5 4.0 22.6 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.9 5.2 1.3 12.0 0.0 12 42.7 3.2 24.0 9.0 11.3 13.3 15.4 4.4 1.4 12.0 0.0 13 43.9 4.1 23.7 7.3 10.1 11.9 5.9 1.4 12.0 0.0 14 44.1 3.5 23.6 7.2 9.7 11.8 5.0 1.4 12.0 0.0 15 46.7 5.8 20.4 4.8 7.2 10.1 13.1 7.5 1.3 12.0 0.0 16 46.6 2.9 27.8 16.6 11.0 5.1 1.8 16.0 0.0 16 c� 0 Target EDR Examples by Climate Zone Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios 2100 sf Prototype, Mixed Fuel Part 6 2019 Part 6 PV 2019 EDR Efficiency Size, kW with Part 6 EDR DC PV Cz 3 7 10 12 13 15 16 Tier 1 Tier 2 EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Size Tier 2 OS 1.305 1.2 OS 1.1 OS LOOS with Adv Factor Factor and Factor and Factor and Factor and Battery & Basic Basic Basic Basic EDR=O, kW Battery Battery Battery Battery DC Recommended EDR Scores For Tier 1 Tier 2 47.7 2.2 25.0 13.7 16.4 20.1 2.4 1.1 12.0 49.5 2.3 20.7 7.8 11.6 14.1 2.0 0.9 12.0 46.9 2.7 24.5 9.8 12.6 2.7 1.0 12.0 45.0 2.7 25.3 10.5 12.5 3.2 1.2 12.0 46.6 3.5 25.6 6.1 8.8 11.2 15.0 4.4 1.3 12.0 49.9 5.2 21.8 0.6 7.4 10.8 6.1 1.2 12.0 49.3 2.3 30.2 16.9 4.1 1.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M Target EDR Examples by Climate Zone Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios 2700 sf Prototype, All Electric Recommended EDR Scores Part 6 Tier 1 Tier 2 For 2019 Part 6 2019 EDR EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with EDR with Tier 2 PV Tier 2 OS Tier 1 Tier 2 Efficiency PV Size, with Part 1.4 OS 1.3 OS 1.2 OS 1.1 OS LOOS Size with Factor EDR kW DC 6 PV Factor and Factor and Factor Factor Factor and Adv Basic Basic and Basic and Basic Basic Battery & Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery EDR=O, kW DC Cz 3 50.9 2.8 28.8 14.3 17.3 4.0 1.4 14.0 0.0 7 51.3 2.9 23.3 13.2 13.2 16.4 3.0 1.0 14.0 0.0 10 47.3 3.4 26.2 12.3 12.3 15.2 4.3 1.3 14.0 0.0 12 45.6 3.3 27.4 10.4 13.9 16.7 5.1 1.5 14.0 0.0 13 46.5 4.3 26.8 9.4 11.8 1S.0 18.4 6.7 1.6 14.0 0.0 15 48.0 6.1 22.4 4.6 10.6 13.8 8.1 1.3 14.0 0.0 16 61.4 3.2 44.3 32.2 34.3 36.9 38.9 40.8 8.0 2.5 22.0?? 0.0 Note: There may not a cost effective or practical way to get to EDR score of zero in CZ16, especially for all - electric homes; winters are too cold with too much resistance heating for HP water and space heating. EDR score of 22 requires a 6.1 kW PV system, an oversizing factor of 1.9, exceeding the 1.6 limit; EDR score of zero requires oversizing factor of 2.5! E- 18 �E Target EDR Examples by Chmate Zone Here is are examples of how Target EDRs might look for different scenarios in different CZs for the 2,700 sf Mixed Fuel Homes: Note: At this time these numbers are examples only and may change as our tools evolve NEM = Net Energy Metering; GH = Grid Harmonization; Dumb PV = No Battery Storage 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Efficiency Target Design PV Sized to Dumb PV PV Size for Zero PV Size for Zero Similar to Col Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 EDR without Rating Score Displace Annual Sized to Zero EDR with Basic EDR with 7 But With 95 to 4 to 4 to 4 PV, based on for Displacing kWh Electric - EDR- Battery Controls- Optimum Battery Furn, 0.95 WH Ratio Ratio Ratio 2019 kWh Elect Cool with NEM, Violates NEM, May Violate NEM, Controls- Cool - Real Cool Efficiency with PV from not so Cool with Not Cool with OK with GH with NEM and with NEM and Measures Col GH GH GH GH CZ 1 48.0 26.5 3.4 7.7 6.9 4.6 4.1 2.0 1.4 1.2 2 41.2 18.0 2.9 6.1 5.5 3.1 2.8 1.9 1.1 1.0 3 46.9 22.7 2.8 5.8 5.3 3.2 2.9 1.9 1.1 1.0 6 48.0 20.9 2.9 5.3 4.5 2.9 2.8 1.6 1.0 1.0 7 48.0 14.9 2.7 4.6 3.9 2.4 2.3 1.4 0.9 0.9 8 43.0 14.6 2.9 5.3 4.3 2.7 2.6 1.5 0.9 0.9 11 43.3 23.4 3.8 8.5 6.5 4.4 4.2 1.7 1.2 1.1 12 43.1 24.5 3.1 7.0 5.8 3.8 3.5 1.9 1.2 1.1 13 44.8 22.1 4.0 9.0 6.2 4.9 4.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 14 44.6 21.3 3.4 7.4 5.4 4.4 4.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 15 48.0 17.9 5.7 10.5 8.1 6.9 6.8 1.4 1.2 1.2 16 46.3 27.5 3.0 7.6 6.5 4.8 4.3 2.2 1.6 1.4 2. Software Tools The CBECC-Res Compliance Software May Be Used For: • Part 6 Compliance, and • Part 11 (CALGreen, Reach Codes, etc) The Software can be used to: • Size PV for Part 6 compliance or lower target EDRs for Reach Codes • Assess the impact of battery storage on lowering EDF • Assess the impact of precooling and other DR strategies on lowering EDR • Assess the impact of HPWH DR on lowering EDR • And other options 4'46pi Cake, X2. NI1 Software Tools Input Screens EMlP01 COMMISSION �' This screen can be used to specify an EDR target that may be required by reach codes to size the PV system 2019_C212_2100ft2-Unvented - v30 12 S21 G20 M01 Project + Analysis EDR 1 PV I Battery I Notes I Building I Lighting I Appliances i IAQ Cool Vent I Peopl k r Perform Energy Design Rating ry Specify Target Energy Design Rating - Score: 10 May be superceded by Max PV Gen Ratio of 1 (Battery tab) Target EDR lengthens analysis runtime Photovoltaic System(s): DC System Size (kW) Module Type I—`' IStandard F CFI? �I 2 Standard IJ CFI? I" aM 21 Gl Inputs: Detailed Simplified Array Orientation and Location 170' azimuth. 22.6° tilt (6.0-in-12) Inverter Eff. (%) 96 96 OK Software Tools -Input Screens 2019_» Z12 210Oft2-Urnpnted - v,.,, � � 1_ 30 12 S21 G2p Mp1 Project l Analysis I EDR 1 PV Battery I Notes I Building I Lighting I Appliances IAGI Cool Vent I Peapl Battery Capacity: 14 kWh PV generation will be capped @ 1.6 x proposed design electric use i Allow Excess PV Generation EDP Credit for above code programs Control: ;Default i secifest Case Discharging Efficiency: 0.95 1 i.95 Pate: 5 kW kW The battery model doesn't currently include energy consumption for cooling the battery during charging in environments above 77°F or to keep the battery from freezing in winter if outdoors. 22 OK c� Software Tools - Input Screens 2019_CZ12_2;o0ft2 - v3[ 12 : -2 G20 nnnl Projier_t .I,nalysis EDP i P"%/ Bsttery I Notes Building Lighting Appliances I IAQ Cool Vent I Peopl Building Description: I CEC Prototype wi-h the roof Air Leakage Status: New Air Leakage: I `' A C H @) ~,UPa Insul. Construction Quality: I improved Perform Multip a Orientation Analysis Front Orentation: 0 deg Single Family ' Multi -family I'Iumber of Bedroorns: 4 r Use PreCooling I✓ Natural Gas is available at the site Gas Type: IN@iural Gas f- Zonal Control Credit (living vs. sleeping) r Has attached garage JIM Software Tools -Results Screens For Compliance for Part 6 and Part 11 '�700ft�,�.-.. r ,.bs� J Llgll.��,�.1=9L'Y.i"SPf�C'�.�'.�'.'�4.' 'Wi�'YrFi9r�,w•5F'c�d'.,v�.,4v sau',UR:u'�!¢-�S4Yl _019_CZ1_'- v3012 S27 G20 M01 Compliance Summary Energy Design Rating I Energy Use Details 1 EDP of Proposed Efficiency: 41.9 EDP of Prop PV + Floxibility 19.1 - Final Propocod EDR: 22.0 EDR of Standard Efficiency: I 43.2 - EDR of Minimum Required PV: I 18.5 = Final Sid Design EDR: I 24.7 End Use Space I leating Space Cooling IAQ Ventilation Other HVAC Dater Heating PfiuluvullaiL;a 8 att ery Inside Lighting Appl. & Cookinq Phig I nartG Eutcrior TOTAL r,,,A24 M Reference Desiqn Site (kWh) 504 1,729 194 Reference Desiqn Site (therms) 406.0 176.3 Reference Design (kTDVfft2-yr) 4G.09 59.71 1.99 0.00 13.03 Proposed Design Site (kWh) 107 317 194 -5 ,022 2,615 30.42 616 989 73.4 15.65 1,040 71 7F7 3.r, nF 2;971 328 3.64 162 9,705 735.7 204.49 -146 Proposed Design Site (therms) 217.2 119.9 5111 382.3 Proposed Desiqn KDV/ft2-yr) 19.�-J1 17.22 1.99 0.00 8.86 -43.51 U.UU 6.98 14.46 �r, n9 1.61 52.15 Design Rating Margin VDV/ftz- yr) 25.50 42.49 0.00 0.00 4.17 43.51 U.UU 23.44 1.19 1n n3 1.93 162.34 Done N'M10601pQ' Software Tools — Results Screens Compliance Pass/Fail 2019_CZ12_2700rL2 - v30 12 S27 G20 M01 Compliance Summary Encrgy Dcoign Rating I Energy Uoc Dotoilo Energy Design Ratings: Compliance Margins: Efficiency' FinaF Efficiency' Finah (EDP) (EDP) (EDR) (EDR) Standard Design 43.2 24.7 Proposed Design 41.9 22.8 1.3 1.9 Result3: COMPLIES (not current) ' Ffr.ianr.y mPRcmras innhirfa imprnvamants lika a hattar hiiildinrg RnvRInPR and mnrR affir.iant P.giiipmant z Final EDR includes efficiency, photovoltaics and batteries Building complies when all efficiency and final margins are greater than or equal to zero ►r25 (M I Done 17, : yI � � - � � � \ ^« 2 - —.i + Solar production occurs during low TDV hours, and households demand energy during high TDV hours PV must be sized larger to reach TDV ZNE vs. Site ZNE (which doesn't account for the changing value of kWh) + For a 2,100 ft2 home with 1800 PV orientation, TDV ZNE requires 7% - 44% larger PV capacity than Site ZNE (average: 21%) + Because PV interconnection rules limit sizing to electric kWh, this presentation focuses on that size All -Electric Home PV system capacity (kW) M ixed Fuel Home PV System Capacity (M) (2,100 scl ft all -electric home, 180°PV orientation) 2100 sf mixed fuel home, 180° orientation 10 10 8 a a 8 U U 6 u Co fl. 6 E v ra E 4 4 Ln a2 0-2 Jill 11111111-1-1-1 11 "{ N M CT Ln Z r, W Q1 O H N rn �Zr Ln lD .A N N m � Ln 1.0 n co M o r1 N m -:I, Ln cn N N N N N N N N .--I 1--1 c-1 c-I a —I c-I 1-1 N N N N N N N N N 4 1 H 14 11 11 ci U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ■SizingPVtoOffset Electric kWh ■Sizing PVto Offset Electric kWh ■Sizing PVto Offset Electric TDV ■Sizing PVto Offset Electric TDV ■Sizing PV to Offset Electric + Gas TDV (Current Definition of ZNE) + No ITC Assumed - The ITC is scheduled to step down throughout the 2020-2022 building standard cycle (26%, 22%, 20%) and then to 0% for residential systems beginning in 2023 All costs assume a 30-yr panel life and inverter replacements after 10 and 20 years (comprises N$0.40/W in the costs) Price based on NREL 2016 Installer Price Low cost case: 30% cost reduction 2016 — 2020 (GreenTech Media) Medium cost case: 18% cost reduction 2016 — 2020 (Bloomberg) High cost case: No cost reduction 2016 - 2020 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 Energy Environmental Economics $2.61 Low Cost PV Costs $3.55 $2.99 Med Cost High Cost Average per -kWh compensated value (TDV) of rooftop PV (Mixed fuel home, solar PV sized to electric kWh, 2,100 sq ft home, 180°PV orientation) E ME NEM 2.0 AC for Exports ■ Behind -the -meter Generation ■ Non -Surplus Export Generation AC = Avoided Costs Non -surplus Export Generation are the hourly exports AC for All Energy+Environmental Economics 29 e� w Offsetting electric kWh with solar PV is cost-effective except under the most aggressive NEM reform scenarios Net Benefit of Offsetting Electric kWh in a Mixed Fuel Home 2700 sf - PV 1800 $25,000 • Low Cost PV NEM 2.0 > $20,000 • • Med Cost PV NEM 2.0 Z CY)• $15,000 • • • • High Cost PV NEM 2.0 (fV $10,000 • • • • • • • • • • ■ • ■Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for _Ln • • • • • • ■ • Exports v • ■ ■ ■ ■ Med Cost PV Avoided Cost for i,t= $5,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ i i = • ■ ■ _ ■ Exports (D i ■ ■ ♦ ♦ • High Cost PV Avoided Cost for C m $- • ♦ • ♦ - ♦ _ ♦ A A ♦ ♦ _ ♦ ♦ ♦ • Exports ♦ Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for All A - i • A Z $(5,000) $(10,000) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone ' Energy Environmental Economics -.j 1 2.89 2 2.46 3 2.38 4 2.36 5 2.22 6 2.38 7 2.26 8 2.46 9 2.51 10 2.58 11 3.10 12 2.58 13 3.28 14 2.73 15 4.83 16 2.37 WN 0) N Ul L 0 od'. -0 OC r,4 tI� i :3 C6 2i W z n N N U I Electric kWh PV scaled such that annual generation = annual electric load Maximize Net Benefits PV scaled to maximize net TDV benefit to customer Practically, this is the same capacity as sizing to kWh, i.e., further generation will only receive Net Surplus Compensation (NSC) Electric TDV PV scaled such that annual TDVs generated = annual TDV of electric load Zero Net Benefits (Breakeven Point) PV scaled to point at which a larger system will not be cost- effective Cost of PV system = Revenue from PV generation p.. Energy Environmental Economics -1 32 + PV sized to max net benefits is smaller than sized to electric TDV • Sizing to TDV does not reflect lower compensation for exports from NEM 2.0 + At sizes beyond max net benefits, incremental kW only receive NSC • Large net benefit and small marginal net cost (PV cost - NSC) at the point of maximum net benefits require much larger systems to zero out net benefits • Retail for self -use and exports, NSC for net surplus - NEM2 20 is 16 14 Y y 12 N LA 10 E s �. 6 4 2 0 2700 sqft, PV180, NEM 2.0, Mid Cost PV III III III III III III III III III III III III III 11111 III CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 ■ PV Sized to Electric kWh ■ PV Sized to Electric TDV Energy+ -Environmental Economics ® PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits Ratio of PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits PV Sized to Electric kWh CZ1 1.98 CZ2 2.51 CZ3 2.49 CZ4 2.62 CZ5 2.76 CZ6 2.42 CZ7 2.61 CZ8 2.49 CZ9 2.55 CZ10 2.43 CZ11 2.65 CZ12 2.59 CZ13 2.43 CZ14 2.96 CZ15 2.55 CZ16 2.61 33 + Valuing export PV generation at avoided cost reduces cost- effectiveness of PV sized to offset kWh Smaller net benefits for systems sized to offset kWh means less kW at marginal net cost are needed to zero out net benefits • Retail for self -use, AC for exports, NSC for net surplus, NEM" T' Ratio of PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits 2700 sqft, PV180, Avoided Costfor Exported Energy, Mid Cost PV PV Sized to Electric kWh 20 18 16 14 Y 12 N V1 10 E 8 a Y 6 4 2 0 d 111111111d111II 1III 1III ull ilidl III Idl-I ul - III CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 ■ PV Sized to Electric kWh ■ PV Sized to Electric TDV Energy Environmental Economics PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ01 1.21 CZ02 1.57 CZ03 1.52 CZ04 1.64 CZ05 1.71 CZ06 1.58 CZ07 1.67 CZ08 1.67 CZ09 1.69 CZ10 1.57 CZ11 1.65 CZ12 1.64 CZ13 1.45 CZ14 1.91 CZ15 1.55 CZ16 1.60 34 + BTM TDV means • All PV production consumed behind -the -meter (BTM) receives full TDV value • All PV production exported to the grid as well as all net surplus above a system sized to annual kWh receives net surplus compensation (NSC) + PV sized to electric kWh and electric TDV are unchanged from previous rate structures + PV sized to maximize net benefits and PV sized to zero net benefits are substantially reduced Ratio of + Retail for self -use, NSC for exports and annual surplus PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits PV Sized to Electric kWh 2700 sgft, PV180, BTM TDV, Mid Cost PV CZ1 0.74 20 CZ2 1.05 18 CZ3 1.01 _ 16 CZ4 1.11 3 14 CZ5 1.14 12 CZ6 1.04 10 E CZ7 1.12 8 a CZ8 1.11 6 CZ9 1.18 4 1. 2 IVII IIII loll 11 1111111 1111 loll 11II loll loll 11111111 loll IIII 1111 CZ101 1.011 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12 1.14 CZ13 0.89 in PV Sized to Electric kWh PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ14 1.30 ■ PV Sized to Electric TDV ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ 15 0.98 '"' CZ16 1.07 35 Energy Environmental Economics + E3 analyzed the additional value of a battery storage system to an existing PV system of a 2700 sf, mixed fuel home + BTM TDV rate scenario BTM generation receives full TDV value (N$0.20/kWh); exported generation receives net surplus compensation value (N$0.03/kWh) + Battery assumptions 14 kWh 5 kW 90% round trip efficiency $500/kWh fully installed Energy Environmental Economics rID C7 36 + Installing storage (without accounting for the storage costs) increases the benefits to the homeowner, allowing them to install more solar + The Generous Santa option: Demonstrates how PV value increases if coupled with storage at no cost + Retail for self -use, and NSC for exports and annual surplus 2700 sgft, PV180, BTM TDV, Mid Cost PV 20 18 storage costs not included 16 _ 14 Y 12 N 10 E 8 Y i 6 2 0 CZO1 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 ■ PV Sized to Electric kWh PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits ■ PV Sized to Electric TDV ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits tnergy tnvironmeniai tconomics Ratio of PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits PV Sized to Electric kWh CZ1 2.05 CZ2 2.78 CZ3 2.70 CZ4 3.09 CZ5 3.09 CZ6 2.89 CZ7 2.97 CZ8 3.17 CZ9 3.77 CZ10 3.75 CZ11 3.76 CZ12 3.71 CZ13 3.66 CZ14 4.26 CZ15 3.47 CZ16 3.02 37 ti �j + Changing the rate structure to avoided cost for exported energy increases the net benefits of solar + storage and therefore increases the amount of solar that can be installed before net benefits are reduced to zero; annual surplus at NSC + The Stingy Santa option - Demonstrates the impact on the PV if Santa charges you for the storage Ratio of + Retail for self -use, AC for exports, and NSC for annual surplus - NEM"3" PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits (with Storage Costs) 2700 sgft, PV180, Avoided Cost for Exported Energy, Mid Cost PV PV Sized to Electric kWh 20 CZ1 1.48 18 CZ2 2.21 76 CZ3 1.96 3 14 CZ4 2.71 12 CZ5 2.23 N to 10 CZ6 1.73 g __ _ _...� . _ ■ CZ7 1.87 Y N 6 _ - CZ8 2.29 I CZ9 2.39 2 II - III I I� � � I'I 1� I�I I I I I I� � � I� -� CZ10 2.47 o CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 CZ12. CZ12 2.63 ■ PV Sized to Electric kWh r^ PV Sized to Maximize Net Benefits CZ13 2.49 ■ PV Sized to Electric TDV ■ PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits CZ14 2.73 PV Sized to Zero Net Benefits (with Storage Cost) PV Sized to Electric +Gas TDV CZ15 2.33 CZ16 1.90 Energy Environmental Economics NR Not cost-effective at any retail rate For avoided cost only rate structures, A ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ increasing the retail rate does not increase cost-effectiveness $0.30 SDG&E TDV Retail Rate N $0.25 LADWP OC N IID $0 20.__. SMUD 0.15 _•0 0 Y oN $0.10 ry O N fV CO - $0.05 we PG&E SCE High Cost PV Avoided Cost for All ♦ Mid Cost PV Avoided Cost for All ♦ Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for All High Cost PV Avoided Cost for Exports ■ Mid Cost PV Avoided Cost for Exports ■ Low Cost PV Avoided Cost for Exports High Cost PV NEM 2.0 •Mid Cost PV NEM 2.0 • Low Cost PV NEM 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IEPR Rate Forecast Climate Zone ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ When solar is cost-effective ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ while only being compensated at avoided cost, it is cost-effective • • • • • • • • • 0 • regardless of the retail rate level Cost-effective at any retail rate Energy+Environmental Economics 39 12000 11500 11000 10500 laaoo 9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 70M 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Limited Impact of Standards PV Requirements Compared to Other Forecasted PV Development 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total Statewide Capacity ---Total Residential Retrofit Total Res New Construction w/o Standards Total Res New Construction tiw/ Standards Remarks to Palm Springs City Council on Proposed Solar Mandate Good evening Mayor Moon, Mayor Pro Tem Foat and Council members. My name is David Freedman. I am a member of the Sustainability Commission and am also speaking on behalf of Planning Commissioner Lisa Middleton on Item 5C, a proposed Palm Springs solar mandate. We have worked extensively on this issue as members of Sustainability's Green Building and Solar Committees. A solar installation will save owners of new and retrofitted homes money from Day 1. 1 included with my remarks savings calculations using the figures in the cost effectiveness study in your staff report and actual costs for recently retrofitted homes in Palm Springs. The California Energy Commission posted a report on Monday estimating electricity cost savings for our climate zone to be more than double the cost of the PV system over a 30-year period. The state will require solar panels on new homes beginning 2020. The CEC report and its presentation in your staff report show sizing requirements for our climate zone higher than the two watts per square foot standard in the proposed ordinance. If solar is going to be required statewide in two years, why mandate it in Palm Springs now? First, last year you adopted a Sustainability Plan containing aggressive goals for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Reducing electricity consumption and thus GHG emissions shows our environmental leadership and reinforces our branding as a sustainable city that meets its stated goals. Second, it provides a head start to Palm Springs architects and developers planning for the 2020 standards. Many, such as the Miralon and Serena Park projects totaling 1,500 new homes, are already adding solar because they see the market advantages to being an early adopter. Third, a Palm Springs solar mandate increases the supply of renewable energy to the CVAG Community Choice Aggregation program that you approved in July. We will be able to consume "home-grown" energy. Eight California cities have adopted solar ordinances. None of them receives as much sun as Palm Springs It is time to add our name as well. 0 Thank you for your consideration. I am available for any questions you may have. ri David Freedman Palm Springs Sustainability Commissioner _ . rl And on behalf of Lisa Middleton Palm Springs Planning Commissionerin W System Cost Minus 30% Federal Tax Credit Net Cost to Home Owner Mothly cost if added to mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) Monthly cost with PACE financing (10% down payment; 20 years @ 6.0%) Solar Cost Impact 4.2 kW Solar Retrofit Install $16,884 ($4.02 / watt)* 5 065 $11,819 N/A $76 4.2kW Solar New Construction Install $17,052 ($4.06 / watt)** 5 116 $11,936 $55 N/A * Based on average cost of $4.47 / watt AC reported by the California Energy Commission (CEC) DG stats database for 971 Palm Springs solar installations between 8/15 and 6/17. The solar industry sizes and prices in DC nameplate capacity, but the CEC and utilities derate the system for conversion, energy loss and potential soiling effects, reflecting actual power produced in AC current. The $ / watt cost in DC is typically 10-12% lower than $ / watt cost in AC. A 90% AC to DC conversion factor is used ($4.47 / watt AC x 0.9 = $4.02 / watt DC). ** Based on $4.06 / watt DC used in EcoMotion cost effectiveness study. The developer may be eligible for an incentive under the CEC New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP). The current incentive level is $0.50 / watt for market -rate housing ($2,100 for a 4.2 kW system). The incentive must be passed onto the end user (i.e., home buyer). The $4.06 / watt cost does not include the NSHP incentive. Monthly cost of $525,000 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) $2,394 Monthly cost of $536,936 mortgage (10% down payment; 30 years @ 4.5%) $2,449 Net Monthlv Cost Savines (Year 11 Retrofit Install New Construction Install SCE cost offset $105 $105 Monthly interest cost ($76) ($55) Monthly savings $29 $50 9/26/2017 CalifomiaDGStats Find an Active Solar Installer Near You Palm Springs Search Disclaimer: This tool provides a list of recently completed (starting in August 2015) solar PV projects in a given area (zip code, city or county) and displays the "Cost/Watt" (in AC capacity) for each project. Please note that PV system cost figures are self -reported by applicants and no additional verification has been conducted on these figures. To remove erroneous data, the top and bottom 1% of applications are removed from the underlying data set used to create the search results due to their respective high and low cost per watt values. A (/faq/find_installer) This search tool queries data from the Net Energy Metering (NEM) Interconnection Application Dataset (/downioads). Only solar PV NEM interconnection applications from within PG&E, SCE and SDG&E territories with interconnections on or after August 1st, 2015 are included in the search. o (/faq/find_installer) Your search returned 971 results with an average cost per watt of $4.47 9 Quick Tipl Sort the list by clicking the desired column headings. Show 10 v entries j= Date City Zip Contractor 2017- Palm Springs 92262 Vivint Solar Developer, 06-30 LLC 2017- Palm Springs 92262 Alta Tourbine 06-30 2017- Palm Springs 92262 Hot Purple Energy 06-30 2017- PALM 92262 Infinity Energy Inc 06-30 SPRINGS 2017- Palm Springs 92262 HOSOPO CORP 06-30 2017- Palm Springs 92262 Vivint Solar Developer, 06-30 LLC 2017- Palm Springs 92264 Green Engineering Solar 06-29 Corp. dba GESC Search: 3rd System Party Size CostNvatt Owned? Phone (kW) ($) Yes 385-352-0158 3.8684 $4.92 No 310-845-5961 7.2673 $3.99 No 760-322-4433 2.1510 $4.74 No 916-474-4723 5.1306 $5.16 Yes 951-438-2050 7.3255 $5.86 Yes 385-352-0158 9.9449 $2.78 No 626-240-2744 13.6408 $4.18 http://www.califomiadgstats.ca.gov/find_installer/ 113 9/26/2017 CalifomiaDGStats 2017- PALM 92262 Renova Energy Corp 06-29 SPRINGS 2017- Palm Springs 92262 06-29 2017- Palm Springs 92264 Hot Purple Energy 06-28 Showing 1 to 10 of 971 entries Pacific Gas and Electric Company SOL IHI It\ (_ V 11 ORM EDISON Off so��' A' Sempra Energy utility Center for Sustainable Energy 4GRID ALTERNATIVES No 760-568-3413 8.8673 No 1.2551 No 760-322-4433 4.9704 $4.72 $4.88 $2.18 Previous El 2 3 4 5 ... 98 Next Home (/) Find a Solar Installer (/find_installer) Download Data (/downloads) Stats and Charts (/charts) CA Programs (/programs) FAQ (/faq) Go Solar California (http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org) Terms of Use (/terms_of use) Support (mailto:csisupport@energy-solution.com) http:lAovww.califomiadgstats.ca.gov/find—installerl `X :T ..Climates ActionPS '21V OCT -4 AM 9. 56 Ourgoak To stop climate change Palm Springs Council: Solar Ordinance 10/4/17 Council Meeting This summer we saw the heartbreaking impact of climate change. Epic storms, unprecedented rainfall and floods that devastated major cities and island nations. Harvey dumped 52 inches of rain in the Houston area. The west was on fire with raging wildfires from British Columbia to Los Angeles. Seattle Vancouver and Portland were shrouded in smoke and ash for weeks. In California alone, climate change has created more dead trees than there are people (LA Times). Reports from Marin predict that rising sea levels will destroy property in California cities within 15 year. We know climate change is caused by burning fossil, f rels. The time for talk is over. It is time for aggressive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Congratulations on your leadership in taking action to address this threat. It serves as an inspiration to cities around the world. Wednesday night we are asking you to take the next step and support the common sense solar ordinance on your agenda. This is proven policy with similar ordinances in at least 6 other California cities. This ordinance provides some very real benefits. It limits the disastrous increase of GHG emissions from our housing boom. It stimulates local businesses and provides jobs. It diversifies our economy and, it's good for our brand as cutting edge city. As you know, this ordinance has been developed over many months. It has been crafted with significant research and review by both Planning and Sustainability Commissions. Multiple stakeholders participated in forming the final version. Significant efforts have been made to assure affordability while ensuring that we build smarter buildings in response to the threat of climate change. We urge you to vote yes on this solar ordinance. Given what we know about climate change, we must take the actions required to meet our commitment to the Paris Accords and assure a better world for future generations. Ellen Lockert Founder, Climate Action PS www.climateactiont)s.com ellen@climateactionps.com www.cl i m ateactionps.com P.O. Box 5086, Palm Springs, CA 92263 Ad 1,.�or�ct1 90t+e<icis /�Jc4 f MU1 (tcD5 M October 4th, 2017 Mayor Robert Moon Palm Springs City Council 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. Palm Springs, CA 92262 Building Industry Association of southem Califomia 3891 111h street Re: Proposed Mandatory Photovoltaic Measures for Residential Ri_idc, Califomia92501 Office (951) 7R1-7310 Construction Ordinance Fa.(9591)781-0509 Dear Mayor Moon, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed mandatory solar photovoltaic measures for residential construction. Upon review of the proposed ordinance, and analyzing the potential costs to builders and homebuyers in the Palm Springs area, the BIA recommends that the City Council refrain from imposing mandates associated with the installation of solar. As you are aware, California is currently experiencing a housing supply and affordability crisis with social and economic consequences for Palm Springs, and communities throughout the Coachella Valley. In California, housing costs are being driven upwards by a severe shortage of housing. According to state reports, California is only adding 80,000 new housing units annually - 100,000 units short of what is needed to meet the current housing demand each year. The average single-family home in California costs $440,000 - two and a half times the national average. Rents are also 50 percent higher than the rest of the country. Costs associated with the installation of mandatory solar will only exacerbate these problems. The cost of mandating the inclusion of solar on new houses will be felt among the builders and subcontractors who live and work in Palm Springs and among the future residents looking to make Palm Springs their home. The proposed increase in costs will not only discourage continued home building, but it will further push the price of housing beyond reach for many first-time home buyers. The BIA respectfully requests that the City Council provide direction to staff that focuses on solutions that are voluntary in nature and consider other options such as market driven incentives to further green energy goals in future housing construction. Thank you, Clint Lorimore Director of Governmental Affairs